Constitutional referral at the application for leave for Judicial Review stage

The Appellant’s argument was that a Puisne Judge cannot sit as a Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine cases

The Appellant complains that his rights under article 16 and 26 of the Constitution have been breached by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Constitutional Law: A declaration that the decision of the 1st and 2nd respondents, that the petitioners said project stands cancelled, contravenes Article 26 (1) of the Constitution with respect to the Petitioner etc: claim of infringement of right to freedom of conscience and religion, and right to property: whether or not the refusal to approve building plans constitutes an infringement of these rights: three preliminary objection raised by Attorney General: first two objections upheld, namely, that the petition was filed out of time without any application requesting leave to file the petition out of time; the court is not empowered to grant leave where none has been sought: the second, namely that the petioners has an alternative remedy in judicial review upheld. The petition is dissmissed.

Constitutional Law: claim of infringement of right to freedom of conscience and religion, and right to property: whether or not the refusal to approve building plans constitutes an infringement of these rights: four preliminary objection raised by Attorney General: first and second objections dismissed; the petition not a nullity but an irregularity which has been remedied; the petition not filed out of time because potential breach of rights of a continuous nature: third objection upheld; Petitioner has not availed alternative remedy; Petitioner has right to compel Respondents by way of writ mandamus to finalise appeal; Case transferred to the Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under article 125 (1) ( c) of the Constitution