A calm and cursory analysis of the petitioners’ address would reveal that the petitioners are attempting to achieve through counsels’ address what they could not achieve during the hearing of the petition and thus,
All the purported demonstrations of documents particularly under issues 3, 4 and 5 of the petitioners’ final written address
It is to be noted that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in their final written address made certain crucial and fundamental submissions which the petitioners
For instance, the 3rd Respondent had argued in paragraphs 5.32 – 5.39 on pages 20 – 21 of its’ final address under the sub-head “NON – QUALIFICATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER”
It signifies that the petitioners are deemed to have conceded the salient and crucial arguments on the said issue.
PETITIONERS’ ISSUES 1 AND 2
With all due respect the petitioners’ submissions in their entire final written address, particularly paragraphs 3.02 – 3.57 thereof, are not only grossly misconceived but overtly ambitious
“I seek to state further that with the case at hand being declaratory in
The petitioners misconceived the position of the law on the clear-cut distinction between non – calling of witnesses and non-calling of evidence. Admittedly the 1st Respondent did not call any witness nor tender any document.