The court considered whether the applicant could originate the
application under another application and petition to the Constitutional
Court for which he was not a party. The court observed that for a party to
be joined as party to a suit or for the current application to be filed basing
on another petition any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the
same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to
exist and in the present case the applicant sought bail whereas the main
application sought interpretation of the constitution.
The court considered the respondent’s second objection to the
application that the application was a constitutional matter which could
not be presided over by a single judge. The learned justice observed that
single justice of the Court of Appeal had powers to exercise powers of
the court and since the Court of Appeal doubles as the Constitutional
court with the necessary modifications a single Justice can exercise any
power vested in the Constitutional Court in any interlocutory cause or
matter before the Constitutional Court. However the court observed that
applications for stay are heard by a panel of three justices as practice off
the court.
The preliminary objections were thereby upheld and the application was
dismissed.