the Humanist view

I remember when the Registrar of High Court at Mbale decided to hold a locus session at our ancestral home, my late papa’s home.

He claimed it was in order to establish the status quo that would be maintained if my application for an injunctive protective order were granted.

He proceeded to conduct the locus tour of my Alinga Farms orchard within my wider agro-forestry project.

Then right there and then he wanted to render a ruling.

My legal team, First Chair, Advocate Allan Ogoi of Okalang Law Chambers, fought back and prayed for time to go on written Court record first on matters the locus.

The judicial officer backed down. And he left the scene shortly thereafter, seemingly in a hurry.

Subsequently, and in the protection of his chambers, paid for by our taxes, the judicial officer, went ahead to base his ruling on said locus.

Or was it the case the ruling was already written and he needed the locus to support it. It certainly appeared so.

As in the judicial officer seemingly did engage in manufacturing and smuggling into Court evidence not in the trial bundles of the litigants; and in this case for the advantage of the defendant.

Using the locus, he declined my application for a temporary injunction and also went ahead to dismiss my Civil Suit 18 of 2022, without hearing it.

My legal team appealed, filing Miscellaneous Application 340 of 2022, arising from Application 53 of 2022, arising from Civil Suit 18 of 2022.

In its ruling on appeal, Court used choice words such as “appalling to say the least, irregular, improper” to characterize the conduct, decisions and ruling of the judicial officer.

Read more about my on-going ordeal in my detailed blog “Call for a T-Rex Generation of ‘criminal justice’ enforcers.” Simply click here and read.