The applicant approached this court seeking the following order:
“1. It is be and is hereby declared that, barring, ejectment and or interference of the Applicant’s attendance in the pre-budget consultative meetings and National Assembly on account of Applicant’s wearing of a colourful Rastafari jacket constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of conscience and religion as set out under Section 60 of the Constitution.
2. it is be and is hereby declared that Section 76(1)(a) as read with section 76(5) of the National Assembly Standing Rules and Orders permits the Applicant to wear his Rastafari colourful jacket in... More
Appellant was convicted of one count of indecent assault as defined in s 67 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23] and another of rape as defined in s 65 of the same Act. He was sentenced to one year in respect of the indecent assault charge and seventeen years in respect of the rape charge. Of the 17 years imprisonment 4 years was suspended for five years on the usual conditions of future good behavior. The one year in respect of the indecent assault charge was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in respect of... More
On 8 December 2010 at around 1700 hours and in Avonlea Drive, the plaintiff was approached by the defendant who was in company of other officers of the Criminal Investigation Department. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to disembark from the motor vehicle where he was sitting. He ordered the plaintiff to lie on the ground on his back.
The defendant accused the plaintiff of having stolen the motor vehicle he was in. The plaintiff protested his innocence. The defendant who was standing directly above the plaintiff, fired several shots aimed at the plaintiff’s legs. He proceeded to handcuff the complainantand... More
This is chamber application by the applicants seeking the dismissal of the court application under case No. HC 8289/16 filed by the respondent against the applicants. The chamber application is brought in terms of r 236 (4) (b) of the Rules of the High Court which reads;
“(4) Where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within a month thereafter, set the matter down for hearing, the respondent, on notice to the applicant, may either—
(a) set the matter down for hearing in terms of r 223; or
(b) make... More
The applicants’ legal practitioners wrote a follow up letter dated 5 December 2016 enquiring on the judgment in this application which was argued before me on 8 November 2016. More
