PRACTICE NOTE: REPUBLIC v. PEKI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [1968] GLR 1118
18 December 1968 · FRANCOIS J · ≈ 2 min read
[1968] SLR (HC) 73Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: HIGH COURT, HO
DATE: 18 DECEMBER 1968
BEFORE: FRANCOIS J.
COUNSEL
A. K. Gikunoo for S. F. Goodhead for the applicant.
JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.
This is an application for leave to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Peki Traditional Council to hear and determine a suit pending before it.
[p.1119] of [1968] GLR 1118
When learned counsel for the applicant began his argument, I pointed out that his papers were not in order. Learned Counsel however insisted that they were and urged the application. I have had to consider the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 59, r. 2 (2) which reads as follows:
“(2) An application for such leave as aforesaid shall be made ex parte to the Court, except in vacation when it may be made to a Judge in chambers, and shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits verifying the facts relied on . . .”
(The emphasis is mine.)
The applicant in my view has not complied with this mandatory requirement by embodying a statement in his motion paper. The practice has always been to file with the motion, a statement setting out the requisite particulars. The said statement must disclose the grounds upon which the application is sought. In my view, this is not satisfied by stating on a motion paper:
“The grounds upon which the said relief is sought are set out in the accompanying affidavit, and any further order or orders as this court may seem fit.”
The affidavit is to verify the facts in the statement; if these facts are set out in the affidavit then they remain unverified.
I am painfully constrained therefore to refuse leave.
DECISION
Application dismissed.
L. F. A.
