Interpretation of Statutes (295)
HELD:
"Section 83 reads:
HELD:
"It is settled law that the courts cannot amend the Constitution neither can they change the words.
HELD:
"Mere technical rules of interpretation of statutes are to some extent inadmissible in a way so as to defeat the principles of government enshrined in the Constitution.
HELD:
"The use of the word 'shall' in Order 22 rule 3(1) of the Rules in this context is in my view neither in itself conclusive nor sacrosanct or absolute.
HELD:
"The provision of Order 22 Rule 3(1) on undefended list procedure, by nature seeks to ensure that the trial judge must satisfy himself having regard to all the materials placed before him that the defendant has no defence to the uncontested liquidated sum claimed.
HELD:
"In the literal rule of interpretation, courts must interprete words in the Constitution in accordance with the intendment and certainly not in a way opposed to the purpose intended for the enactment.
HELD:
"In the interpretation of the constitution a judge should not only rely on the provisions of the constitution but also on our historical development as a people and the history before the Constitution was enacted.
HELD:
"Section 285 (1) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that -
HELD:
"... In the words of Order 6 Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1981: 10. Where an appellant fails to file his brief with the time provided for in rule 2 of his Order, or within the time extended by the court, the respondent may apply to the court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution...