Bearing the above legal principles in mind and the
evidence pleadings and submissions of both the
appellant and the respondent as were availed to
court at trial and summarize in this Judgment, this
court found that the CAO adamantly assumed

powers he did not have to interdict and eventually
to make submissions to the DSC to dismiss the
appellant.
The court further added that provisions of section
55(4) of the Local Governments Act are
mandatory and the trial Judge grossly misdirected
herself when she ignored them. The District
Service Commission could only act in way of
exercising disciplinary control j over the appellant
only on a submission from the District Council
and not on a submission from the CAO. Therefore
grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal succeed.
The court eventually held that Ground 3 of the
appeal was abandoned, and since grounds 1 and 2
have been successful, it follows therefore that this
appeal succeeds.
This court considered that the appellant would be
sufficiently atoned for what he suffered by being
awarded all the emoluments he was entitle to get,
together with interest at the Court rate, had he not
been interdicted and eventually dismissed:
The court in result ordered that the appellant is
awarded the costs of this appeal and those in the
Court below.