The appellant who is a practising advocate
filed a petition in the Constitutional Court
seeking a declaration that “Rule 15 of the
Rules of the Constitutional Court (Petition for
Declarations under Article 137 of the
Constitution Directions 1996, is inconsistent
with Article 26(2) of the Constitution.” The
Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed
the petition as devoid of merit. The appellant
who appeared in person and represented
himself appealed to this court and filed a
Memorandum of Appeal containing seven
grounds that there was error in holding that a
right to petition the Constitutional Court under
Article 137 of the Constitution did not
constitute property of such a petitioner under
Article 26(2) of the Constitution.