There we are! Let the learned fellows have there thing as we watch.
Thanks.
Sam
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27/11/13, Caleb Alaka <calebal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [WestNileNet] WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12
To: "Alioni Emmanuel Drajole" <drajole...@yahoo.com>, "A Virtual Network for
friends of West Nile" <westnilenet@kym.net>
Cc: "westnilenet@kym.net" <westnilenet@kym.net>
Date: Wednesday, 27 November, 2013, 19:47
Does non
payment of fees on a Court Order render it a nullity. Which
law says so?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Alioni Emmanuel Drajole <drajole...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It is practically unimaginable
for one to obtain bank payment slit from Court, go pay in
the bank, confirm payment with the court cash office, file
the application, have it hard by a Registrar, then the
Registrar gives a ruling. where after an order is extracted
and the same procedure for payment of fees is adopted to pay
fees on the order and again have it signed by the
Registrar.
All this I believe can not be done within such a minimal
time lag
thanks
Alioni Emmanuel Drajole
On Wednesday,
November 27, 2013 10:46 AM, "westnilenet-requ...@kym.net"
<westnilenet-requ...@kym.net>
wrote:
Send WestNileNet mailing
list submissions to
westnilenet@kym.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to
westnilenet-requ...@kym.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
westnilenet-ow...@kym.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific
than "Re: Contents of WestNileNet digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: (no subject) (Deogratias Acidri)
2. Re: (no subject) (Onzoma Apollo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:38:02 +0300
From: Deogratias Acidri <acidrideograt...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: samuel andema <andema...@yahoo.co.uk>,
A Virtual Network for
friends of West Nile <westnilenet@kym.net>
Subject: Re: [WestNileNet] (no
subject)
Message-ID:
<cak+r1zkjx8-v6syld1o9axaymizrsbsd7ajju1+xfxq-ot_...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thanks Emmanuel. Just two things, not from a legal point of
view as such.
1. I am in Arua and I know Banks that start business at 8am
and even
8:30am. So I do not really understand when you say Bans in
Uganda start
business at 9:00am.
1. I work for a local Government and I know the Standing
Orders indicate
8:00am as official time for commencement of business. Where
have you got
your 9am from?
Acidri Deogratias.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM, samuel andema <andema...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:
> Hi Emmnanuel,
> Thank you very much for your insightful piece. It is
free
legal education
> for which I can only thank you again! Your parents did
good to send you to
> school. Keep it up, my brother.
> Sam
>
>
> On Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 7:27, Alioni
Emmanuel Drajole <
> drajole...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *ANALYSIS OF THE LORD MAYOR'S IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS FROM A STRICTLY
> LEGAL POINT OF VIEW. Today I thought it prudent to look
at yesterday's
> issue from a PURELY LEGAL point of view with a focus on
both sides, and the
> possible way forward.
Hopefully lessons can be learnt from the process,
> both by lawyers and non-lawyers. LORD MAYOR ARGUMENTS:
We start with the
> Lord Mayor's arguments; 1. INJUNCTION: An
injunction is merely a court
> order stopping a certain act from taking place. In this
case, an Interim
> injunction was obtained from the Registrar of the High
Court. Now, there
> are 3 types of injunctions, a) Permanent Injunction,
which is issues after
> the trial, b) Temporary Injunction, which is issued to
last as long as the
> trial, c) Interim Injunction, which is issued chap
chap, in this case it
> was issued at 8:30am as a matter of urgency to prevent
the Council meeting
> from going on at 9am pending the court process due to
start at 10am to
> entertain another injunction hearing. This was a very
bright move by the
> Lord mayor's lawyers and kudos to them for their
quick thinking. 2. SERVICE
> OF THE COURT
ORDER: Now to the controversial part, the service. Now,
when
> an Injunction is got, it is supposed to be served to
the other party.
> Service simply means delivering the order following the
RIGHT PROCEDURE as
> prescribed by court. In this case, the order was taken
to City Hall, by the
> Lord Mayor's Lawyers, who were barred from
accessing the meeting venue
> while the meeting was taking place. A Councillor, who
was in the meeting,
> then delivered this document to the chairman of the
meeting but the
> Minister refused to accept. No matter how absurd it
might seem, the
> Councillor was not the right person to Serve/ Deliver
that order on the
> Minister, it should have been served by either the Lord
Mayor, or his
> Lawyers. So legally, as far as the Law is concerned,
the order was NOT duly
> served onto the Minister, who in "ignorance"
then proceeded to conduct the
> meeting. The
blame should go to the Police and other persons at the
gates
> of City Hall for refusing to allow the Lord Mayor's
Lawyers (in this case
> acting as officers of the court) from delivering that
court order, hence
> obstructing justice and frustrating delivery of the
order, but not to the
> Minister because legally, the Minister has a solid
argument based on his
> "ignorance" of the existence of the
injunction. 3. REMEDY: In the end, the
> meeting was carried out, and the Lord Mayor impeached.
He still has a solid
> remedy, which is to appeal against that decision within
21 days. Now, if he
> appeals, then he still remains Lord Mayor for the
duration of the appeal,
> if he fails to appeal or apply for Judicial Review,
then elections will
> have to be carried out. PETITIONER ARGUMENTS: From what
transpired
> yesterday, tough questions were raised by this side too
which questions we
>
cannot resolve, but we will endevour to shed some light
accordingly because
> the Media will focus on these arguments for the rest of
the year. 1. TIME
> FOR COURT BUSINESS: Court business officially starts at
9am countrywide, so
> questions are being raised as to how the Lord
Mayor's lawyers managed to
> obtain a Court document before 9am. Now, if this is
true the order was
> obtained before 9am, then any business conducted before
9am is void.
> However, courts also do have powers to conduct business
longer than usual
> e.g late into the night. 2. COURT FEES: A court case,
hearing etc is null
> and void if court fees are not paid, and court fees are
paid into the bank.
> Now, banks in this country open business at 9am. So,
how were court fees
> paid before 9am? If no court fees were paid, then those
proceedings too are
> a nullity based on this argument alone. However, in
certain
instances,
> court can order that the fees be paid later, and uphold
the legality of the
> proceedings before the fees were paid. 3. CASES AGAINST
GOVERNMENT: Now,
> the Government Proceedings Act does not allow cases
against the government
> to go on Ex- Parte, (Ex- parte means with only Lawyers
of one side
> represented). In this case, Lawyers for the Lord Mayor
went for the
> Injunction in the absence of Lawyers representing the
Petitioners which
> made it an ex-parte proceeding. Since the other side in
the case was the
> Government i.e Attorney General, then if that order was
granted Ex-parte,
> it might be declared unlawful if challenged based on
this ground because
> matters against the Government cannot go on Ex-parte.
4. TIME OF SERVICE:
> Officially, government business in Uganda begins at
9am, which means any
> official documents to be served onto anyone in
Government
should be done
> after 9am. It is claimed by the Lawyers for the Lord
mayor that the
> Injunction was served on a Government office at 8:38am
which would make the
> service irregular. WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD: As we try
to swim through this
> legal gymnastics from what transpired yesterday, it
appears, from the facts
> at hand, that the most appropriate Legal remedy
available for the Lord
> Mayor is to apply for JUDICIAL REVIEW against the
Council decisions and his
> main argument will be that he was not given a RIGHT TO
A FAIR-HEARING since
> neither him nor his Lawyers were present in the
meeting. If indeed it is
> proven he was not given a chance to defend himself,
then the outcomes of
> the meeting could be set aside or quashed by the Court.
Otherwise as it
> stands now, from a Legal point of view, the meeting
appears to have been
> lawful and it's outcomes binding unless
successfully challenged in courts
> of law. If you have any questions related to this
opinion, send a private
> message through the inbox, email to drajole...@yahoo.com
> <drajole...@yahoo.com>
*
> *NOTE: THIS IS PURELY A LEGAL OPINION NOT BASSED ON ANY
POLITICAL
> SENTIMENTS.*
> *ALIONI EMMANUEL DRAJOLE*
>
> Top of Form
>
> _______________________________________________
> WestNileNet mailing list
> WestNileNet@kym.net
> http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
>
> WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
>
> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted
them (including
> attachments if any). The List's Host is not
responsible for them in any way.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WestNileNet mailing list
> WestNileNet@kym.net
> http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
>
> WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
>
> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted
them (including
> attachments if any). The List's Host is not
responsible for them
in any way.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://orion.kym.net/mailman/private/westnilenet/attachments/20131126/bd259c3b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:44:39 +0300
From: Onzoma Apollo <apon...@gmail.com>
To: samuel andema <andema...@yahoo.co.uk>,
A Virtual Network for
friends of West Nile <westnilenet@kym.net>
Subject: Re:
[WestNileNet] (no subject)
Message-ID:
<CAAS=X2Auhc=1QbtGk-o_EdgQEH9+a5HRRsBYVb1Z=_5f0bk...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thanks for this update. It clarifies a lot of issues. What
isn't very clear
to me is the time Government business starts and banks open
(which appear
to be 8.30am these days). The details have been very
enriching for me bwana
Alioni.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM, samuel andema <andema...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:
> Hi Emmnanuel,
> Thank you very much for your insightful piece. It is
free legal education
> for which I can only thank you again! Your parents did
good to send you to
> school. Keep it up, my brother.
>
Sam
>
>
> On Tuesday, 26 November 2013, 7:27, Alioni
Emmanuel Drajole <
> drajole...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *ANALYSIS OF THE LORD MAYOR'S IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS FROM A STRICTLY
> LEGAL POINT OF VIEW. Today I thought it prudent to look
at yesterday's
> issue from a PURELY LEGAL point of view with a focus on
both sides, and the
> possible way forward. Hopefully lessons can be learnt
from the process,
> both by lawyers and non-lawyers. LORD MAYOR ARGUMENTS:
We start with the
> Lord
Mayor's arguments; 1. INJUNCTION: An injunction is
merely a court
> order stopping a certain act from taking place. In this
case, an Interim
> injunction was obtained from the Registrar of the High
Court. Now, there
> are 3 types of injunctions, a) Permanent Injunction,
which is issues after
> the trial, b) Temporary Injunction, which is issued to
last as long as the
> trial, c) Interim Injunction, which is issued chap
chap, in this case it
> was issued at 8:30am as a matter of urgency to prevent
the Council meeting
> from going on at 9am pending the court process due to
start at 10am to
> entertain another injunction hearing. This was a very
bright move by the
> Lord mayor's lawyers and kudos to them for their
quick thinking. 2. SERVICE
> OF THE COURT ORDER: Now to the controversial part, the
service. Now, when
> an Injunction is got, it is supposed to be served to
the other
party.
> Service simply means delivering the order following the
RIGHT PROCEDURE as
> prescribed by court. In this case, the order was taken
to City Hall, by the
> Lord Mayor's Lawyers, who were barred from
accessing the meeting venue
> while the meeting was taking place. A Councillor, who
was in the meeting,
> then delivered this document to the chairman of the
meeting but the
> Minister refused to accept. No matter how absurd it
might seem, the
> Councillor was not the right person to Serve/ Deliver
that order on the
> Minister, it should have been served by either the Lord
Mayor, or his
> Lawyers. So legally, as far as the Law is concerned,
the order was NOT duly
> served onto the Minister, who in "ignorance"
then proceeded to conduct the
> meeting. The blame should go to the Police and other
persons at the gates
> of City Hall for refusing to allow the Lord Mayor's
Lawyers (in
this case
> acting as officers of the court) from delivering that
court order, hence
> obstructing justice and frustrating delivery of the
order, but not to the
> Minister because legally, the Minister has a solid
argument based on his
> "ignorance" of the existence of the
injunction. 3. REMEDY: In the end, the
> meeting was carried out, and the Lord Mayor impeached.
He still has a solid
> remedy, which is to appeal against that decision within
21 days. Now, if he
> appeals, then he still remains Lord Mayor for the
duration of the appeal,
> if he fails to appeal or apply for Judicial Review,
then elections will
> have to be carried out. PETITIONER ARGUMENTS: From what
transpired
> yesterday, tough questions were raised by this side too
which questions we
> cannot resolve, but we will endevour to shed some light
accordingly because
> the Media will focus on these arguments for the
rest of the year. 1. TIME
> FOR COURT BUSINESS: Court business officially starts at
9am countrywide, so
> questions are being raised as to how the Lord
Mayor's lawyers managed to
> obtain a Court document before 9am. Now, if this is
true the order was
> obtained before 9am, then any business conducted before
9am is void.
> However, courts also do have powers to conduct business
longer than usual
> e.g late into the night. 2. COURT FEES: A court case,
hearing etc is null
> and void if court fees are not paid, and court fees are
paid into the bank.
> Now, banks in this country open business at 9am. So,
how were court fees
> paid before 9am? If no court fees were paid, then those
proceedings too are
> a nullity based on this argument alone. However, in
certain instances,
> court can order that the fees be paid later, and uphold
the legality of the
> proceedings before the fees were
paid. 3. CASES AGAINST GOVERNMENT: Now,
> the Government Proceedings Act does not allow cases
against the government
> to go on Ex- Parte, (Ex- parte means with only Lawyers
of one side
> represented). In this case, Lawyers for the Lord Mayor
went for the
> Injunction in the absence of Lawyers representing the
Petitioners which
> made it an ex-parte proceeding. Since the other side in
the case was the
> Government i.e Attorney General, then if that order was
granted Ex-parte,
> it might be declared unlawful if challenged based on
this ground because
> matters against the Government cannot go on Ex-parte.
4. TIME OF SERVICE:
> Officially, government business in Uganda begins at
9am, which means any
> official documents to be served onto anyone in
Government should be done
> after 9am. It is claimed by the Lawyers for the Lord
mayor that the
> Injunction was served on a Government
office at 8:38am which would make the
> service irregular. WHAT IS THE WAY FORWARD: As we try
to swim through this
> legal gymnastics from what transpired yesterday, it
appears, from the facts
> at hand, that the most appropriate Legal remedy
available for the Lord
> Mayor is to apply for JUDICIAL REVIEW against the
Council decisions and his
> main argument will be that he was not given a RIGHT TO
A FAIR-HEARING since
> neither him nor his Lawyers were present in the
meeting. If indeed it is
> proven he was not given a chance to defend himself,
then the outcomes of
> the meeting could be set aside or quashed by the Court.
Otherwise as it
> stands now, from a Legal point of view, the meeting
appears to have been
> lawful and it's outcomes binding unless
successfully challenged in courts
> of law. If you have any questions related to this
opinion, send a private
> message through the
inbox, email to drajole...@yahoo.com
> <drajole...@yahoo.com>
*
> *NOTE: THIS IS PURELY A LEGAL OPINION NOT BASSED ON ANY
POLITICAL
> SENTIMENTS.*
> *ALIONI EMMANUEL DRAJOLE*
>
> Top of Form
>
> _______________________________________________
> WestNileNet mailing list
> WestNileNet@kym.net
> http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
>
> WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
>
> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted
them
(including
> attachments if any). The List's Host is not
responsible for them in any way.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WestNileNet mailing list
> WestNileNet@kym.net
> http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
>
> WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
>
> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted
them (including
> attachments if any). The List's Host is not
responsible for them in any way.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...
URL:
<http://orion.kym.net/mailman/private/westnilenet/attachments/20131127/4e733cc7/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WestNileNet mailing list
WestNileNet@kym.net
http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
End of WestNileNet Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
WestNileNet mailing list
WestNileNet@kym.net
http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever
posted them (including attachments if any). The List's
Host is not responsible for them in any way.
_______________________________________________
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
WestNileNet mailing list
WestNileNet@kym.net
http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them
(including attachments if any). The List's Host is not
responsible for them in any way.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
WestNileNet mailing list
WestNileNet@kym.net
http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet
WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
_______________________________________________
