Antonio Manuel Jussub v Anjum Jussub (Matrimonial Cause 8 of 2024) [2026] MWHC 38 (19 May 2026)

1 REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY FAMILY AND PROBATE DIVISION MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NUMBER 8 OF 2024 ANTONIO MANUEL JUSSUB ……………………………………………………………….......APPLICANT AND ANJUM JUSSUB……………………………………………………………………………..…RESPONDENT CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE JEAN ROSEMARY KAYIRA Counsel Gonjetso Dikiya of Counsel for the Applicant Counsel Kuleza Phokoso of Counsel for the Respondent Ms. C. Kazembe Court Clerk and Official Interpreter RULING ON AN APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF SALE Kayira J INTRODUCTION This is a ruling on an application to set aside the order of sale pursuant to Order 10 rule 1 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules of 2017-CPR. The parties filed their sworn statements and skeleton arguments which this Court examined thoroughly. The parties argued their respective cases in this Court. This Court reserved its ruling. Today the matter resumes for the delivery of the said ruling. BACKGROUND On 21st February, 2024, the Respondent Anjum Jussub filed a petition for divorce. Apart from praying for the dissolution of the marriage, she prayed for the distribution of matrimonial properties and costs of the action. After trial, this Court granted the prayer dissolving the marriage. The Court had a hearing on 2 ancillary issues specifically on distribution of matrimonial properties. The parties filed their submission and this Court delivered its order on the distribution of matrimonial properties on 24th January, 2025. The order shared the properties in a 55%:45% to the Applicant and Respondent respectively. On 17th March, 2025 Counsel for the Respondent applied for the appointment of an independent valuer for the valuation of the house situated at Plot Number Njewa 9/420. The application so ught that the Commissioner for Valuation should appoint a government valuer or authorised valuer duly registered under the Property Valuation Act of 2024 to carry out the valuation of the matrimonial houses in order to ensure fair, just and proper implementation of the judgment of this Court of 24 th January 2025. This Court duly granted this order which is in the following terms: 1. That the Commissioner for valuation carry out valuation of property land title Number Njewa 9/420 to determine the current market value of the property on the said land; and/or 2. That the Commissioner for valuation should appoint a government valuer or authorised valuer duly registered under the Property Valuation Act, 2024 to carry out valuation of property Land Title Number Njewa 9/420 to determine the current market value of the property on the said land. 3. That upon such determination, the two houses must be sold at the current market value and the proceeds be shared per the court’s ruling of 45 percent to the Petitioner and 55 perc ent to the Respondent; and 4. That the valuation costs be shared equally between the parties. On 12 th July, 2025 Pioneer Properties valued the property at K595, 000, 000.00. The Respondent obtained a Court order to sale the property and the property was sold to Sana Hamsa Haroon on 15 th December, 2025. The sale had two witnesses from the court confirming the authenticity of the court order on the sale. Counsel for the Respondent informed this Court through a letter dated 24 th February, 2025. This letter was copied to Counsel Ayuba James who was then a Legal Practitioner for the Applicant. On 2nd March, 2026, this Court directed Counsel Phokoso to file three things; 1. Paper trail on the choice of the valuer; 2. Paper trail on evidence of payment to the valuer; and 3. Valuation report for purposes of the court record. Counsel undertook to file the documents but never filed then until today. On 2nd April, 2026, the Applicant applied for an inhibition order. 3 SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES The Applicant supported his application with a sworn statement. In the sworn statement of 1st April, 2026, the Applicant accepts the share of 55% and 45% respectively. It is his belief that once the property is valued, he is going to buy out the share of his former spouse. It is what followed after the judgment which compelled him to make an application for an inhibition order and an order setting aside the sale of the property. The Applicant deposes that he did not know about the valuation and eventually sale of the property under paragraph 2.3 of the sworn statement. From paragraphs 2.4 to 8.2, he believes that he has been arbitrarily deprived of his property and the right to be heard by the Counsel. In paragraph 5, he acknowledges and believes that his Counsel made mistakes by not informing him about the progress of the case and receiving his input in form of instructions as to how to move forward. According to the Applicant, this mistake is prejudicial to him because he damages cannot be adequately compensate him. This Court duly granted the inhibition order on 8th April, 2026. The Court resumed for hearing on interpartes application to set aside the order of sale. The Applicant filed a sworn statement in support of the application which is similar to what he filed when h applied for the inhibition order. On her part, the Respondent filed a sworn statement in opposition to the application to set aside the sale of the matrimonial property and continuation of the inhibition order. The Applicant then filed a sworn statement in reply to the sworn statement in opposition to the application to set aside the sale of matrimonial property and for the continuation of the inhibition order. In his response, the Respondent through Counsel, vehemently opposed the application to set aside the sale of t he property. She opposes the application on the ground that the Applicant had dirty hands, suppressed and withheld material facts; and that the application was an abuse of the Court process as it attempts to appeal behind the backdoor; has no merit and is hopeless and does not cite the specific law under which it is made. Counsel further submitted that the present matter was determined already by this Court. As such this Court has no jurisdiction since it is functus officio. Counsel argued that the Applicant is bound by the notice, knowledge, actions or omissions of his Counsel. Since the matter was concluded, it was Counsel’s submission that litigation must come to an end and successful litigants must not be deprived of the fruits of their litigation. Couns el finally submitted that the Applicant has not suffered any prejudice. Therefore, this Court must dismiss the present application with costs. The Applicant’s reply to the sworn statement of the Respondent submits that his last communication with his former Counsel was through an email of 4th March, 2025. In that email, the former Counsel forwarded correspondence from the Respondent’s Counsel. The Applicant accepts receipt of KRP2 on the appointment of an independent valuer for purposes of implementing the judgment of this Court dated 24th 4 January, 2025. However, he laments that he received this email on 4 th March, 2025 when in actual fact it was sent to him on 20th February, 2025. This was outside the timeframe that he was supposed to send his opinion on the appointment of an independent valuer. The Applicant depose that he made efforts to communicate with his former Counsel but they yielded nothing. The next communication was on 12 th March, 2026 through a WhatsApp platform where Counsel informed the Applica nt that the property had been sold and that his cheque was ready for collection at the Court. He then reminded him of the applicable legal fees owing to him in the sum of K50, 000, 000.00-AMJ2. REASONED ANALYSIS OF THE COURT The Respondent raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel argued that Order 10 rule 1 of the CPR; and Order 10 rule 27 of the CPR as read with Section 78 of the Marriage, Divorce and Family Relations Act-MDFRA as well as Sections 123 and 139 of the Registered Land Act do not confer jurisdiction on this Court. Counsel further argued that this Court has no jurisdiction since it delivered its final determination in the present matter. In response, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to hear an application to set aside an exparte order. The arguments from the parties were comprehensive. This Court considers the principles applicable in order for the doctrine of being functus officio to apply. The order which the Applicant seek to be set aside was gr anted when the Respondent applied without notice. In such instances, this Court bears in mind the fact that such orders can be set aside if the interest of justice dictates so. It is the considered understanding of this Court is that an application to either stay enforcement or set aside an order which was made exparte does not fall within the ambit of a court being functus officio. Therefore, this preliminary argument falls off. The Applicant argues that he was deprived an opportunity to express his interest to buy the share of his former wife because he did not know about the steps taken from the day judgment was issued to the day he was informed by Counsel Ayuba James that his property was sold and he should collect his payment. The Respondent argues that the Applicant is bound by the notice, knowledge and action or omissions of his Counsel. It is abundantly clear to this Court that Counsel for the Applicant received all the communications from Counsel for the Respondent. On 2nd April, 2024, Counsel Silvester Ayuba James filed a notice of appointment as a Legal Practitioner for the Applicant. He filed a response, a defence and cross petition for divorce on behalf of the Applicant. Throughout the trial, Counsel Ayuba James was the Legal Practitioner for the Applicant. Counsel Ayuba 5 James actually wrote this Court on 17 th March, 2026 and he confirms that he acted for the Applicant in this matter from the beginning until the final order was made and through the sale process. Since there is no notice from Cou nsel Ayuba James that he ceased to act for the Applicant, this Court safely concludes that he was the Legal Practitioner of the Applicant until 14 th April, 2026 when another Legal Practitioner took over the matter. The record clearly confirms the communica tions made from Counsel Phokoso to Counsel Ayuba James on each step that the Respondent intended to take and sought their input within a specified timeframe and the indication that they will proceed seeking a Court order in the evet that the Applicant does not respond. The communications are also clear on the subsequent decisions made and progress of the sale. In all these comprehensive and articulate communications, it is striking to note the loud silence from the Applicant. In as far as the Court record is concerned, there is no corresponding response from the Applicant either in the affirmative or negative; or counter offer or protest to all the communications made. These communications are detailed and clear in terms of what the Respondent did. To this Court, there is sufficient evidence that the Applicant received thorough and comprehensive communication without suppression of material facts from the Respondent. The Applicant argued that the order of the Court did not give power to the valuer to sale the property. The sale of the property by the valuer is an extension of the powers vested in him. Counsel for the Applicant wondered if the valuer was a qualified agent capable to sale properties. Further, Counsel questioned how a valuer would be objective in the valuation whilst knowing that he is also responsible for the sale of the property. According to Counsel for the Applicant, the valuer will be estimating t he value of the property whilst bearing in mind that he has monetary interest. He therefore found a combination of these roles as a recipe for conflict of interest. It was his argument that since the valuer is entitled to a certain percentage, he would value the property at a lower amount with the intention to sale the property without difficulty. On the contrary, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that they were transparent and professional in all their dealings with the valuer. It is his firm submission that the valuer did not extend his powers. Counsel further argued that the found the argument a s speculative because there was no empirical evidence to show that the valuer had a conflict of interest. It is the Respondent’s further argument that the communications to the Applicant’s former Counsel provided room for clarification and contact whenever he considered it necessary. Counsel Phokoso further submitted that this Court ordered that the property should be valued, sold and the proceeds should be shared between the parties. 6 The Respondent deposed that they wrote Counsel for the Applicant on 11 th March, 2026 regarding the implementation of the judgment on the distribution of matrimonial properties. In the letter, they suggested the appointment of an independent valuer to determine market value of the property for transparent sale and distribution to the parties -KRP1 & KRP2 . The letter was received on behalf of Khonyongwa and Associates, by Phalula on 11th March, 2025 at 4pm. In this letter, there is clear indication that it must be brought to the attention of Counsel Ayuba James. Apart from explain ing the judgment of this Court, Counsel Phokoso kindly requested Counsel Ayuba James to confirm his client’s position on the appointment of an independent valuer within 7 days from that date. This meant by 18 th day of March, 2026. Apart from that, Counsel Phokoso indicated if there is no response, he will proceed to make an application to the Court for an order of appointment of an independent valuer. Counsel Phokoso observed that the Applicant’ s Counsel has been using delaying tactics from the beginning of the case. This according to Counsel, is to frustrate expeditious conclusion of the present matter. After receiving this letter, Counsel Ayuba James did not respond. After 7 days, Counsel Phokoso applied for an order to appoint an independent valuer. This Court granted the order as outlined above-KRP3 and KRP4. This order was served on the Applicant on 9th April, 2026 as confirmed by a stamp from Khonyongwa and Associates by the same Phalula. Counsel then wrote the Secretary for Lands as per KRP5 on 2 nd April, 2025 . Below is the content of the letter on their LETTERHEAD: 02nd April, 2025 Secretary for Lands Private Bag 311 Lilongwe. RE: REQUEST FOR VALUATION OF PROPERTY OF LAND TITLE NUMBER NJEWA 9/420 We refer to the above subject matter and write to formally request a valuation of the property identified as Land Title Number Njewa 9/420. We act as the legal practitioner for Mrs Anjum Jussub, who was involved in a legal case against Mr. Antonio Manuel Jussub. Pursuant to the court’s judgment, the matrimo nial house on Land Title Number Njewa 9 of 420 was distributed as follows: 7  45% to Mrs. Anjum Jussub  55% to Mr. Antonio Manuel Jussub. Following this distribution of matrimonial property, we have obtained a court order directing the office of the Commission er for valuation to appoint a duly registered and authorised valuer to conduct an official valuation of the said property. Kindly proceed with the necessary arrangements to facilitate this valuation at your earliest convenience. Should you require any additional documents or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. The Respondent delivered this letter to the Ministry and it was received by L. Nyando on 2nd May, 2025. According to KRP6, on 12 th May, 2025, the Princip al Secretary for the Ministry of Lands and Urban Development responded as follows: Phokoso and Company … Attention: Mr. Ian Nkoka Dear Sir, RE: REQUEST FOR VALUATION OF PROPERTY OF LAND TITLE NUMBER NJEWA 9/420 Reference is made to your letter dated 2 nd April, 2025 in which you requested for valuation of property of Land Title Number Njewa 9/420 following a Court Order which you obtained that directs the office of the Commissioner for valuations to appoint a duly registered and authorised valuer to conduct an official valuation of the property referred to. In view of the foregoing, Land Economy Surveyor/Valuer George L. Nthachi has been appointed to carry out the valuation of the property Land Title Number Njewa 9/420. By copy of this letter, Land Economy Surveyor/ Valuer George L. Nthachi is informed to liaise with Phokoso amd Company in carrying out valuation of property of Land Title Number Njewa 9/420… In terms of his qualifications, he is a Land Economy Surveyor/ Valuer -KRP5 and KRP6 . On 19th May, 2025 Counsel Nkoka wrote Counsel Ayuba James on the appointment of the valuer-KRP7. In this letter, Counsel explains the above steps and informs Counsel Ayuba James on the appointment of the valuer 8 by the Commissioner of valuations. Actually, the communication further states as follows in paragraph 3, ‘following the court’s order, the Commissioner has appointed Mr. George L. Nthachi, a qualified Land Economy Surveyor/ Valuer, to carry out the valuation. Please note that the cost of the valuation will be shared equally between both parties. Counsel for the Respondent further informed Counsel Ayuba James the cost, the responsibilities of the parties and the date on which the valuation will be done. Counsel also undertook to furnish his colleague with the valuation report once it is submitted. This Court notes that Counsel freely notified Counsel Ayuba James to contact him in the event that there is need for clarification. Counsel Nkoka then proceeded to instruct the valuer to do the valuation through KRP8 which is a letter dated 3rd June, 2025. The relevant parts are as follows; Following our telephone conversation held on 20th May, 2025, we the Legal Practitioners of Mrs. Anjum Jussub, hereby formally instruct you to proceed with the valuation of the property comprised in Title Number Njewa 9/420 located in Area 9 in Lilongwe, Malawi Kindly proceed with the valuation exercise commencing Thursday, 5th June, 2025. The valuation is being undertaken pursuant to an order issued by the High Court of Malawi… Please ensure that the valuation report includes… Kindly note that the valuation is to be carried out… This Court deliberately reproduced the Court order on the appointment of an independent valuer. It is true that the order required that the parties should appoint an independent valuer for purposes of transparency. It is indeed true that the Commissioner of Valuations had a duty to appoint an independent valuer. It is important to note that throughout the communications, Counsel for the Respondent and the Principal Secretary for the Ministry of Lands and Urban Development are referring to valuation of the property under Title Number 9 of 420. It is abundantly clear to this Court that they actually knew and understood the terms and reference of their engagement. In othe r words, the Respondent, the Commissioner of Valuations and the valuer knew what they were supposed to do. This Court ordered the office of the Commissioner of Valuations to facilitate the identification and appointment of an independent valuer. The office of a Commissioner of valuations is created under statute. Therefore, it is a public office. By virtue of its status, any of its decisions made comply with rules of natural justice. Section 43 of the Constitution demands that any person who is to be affect ed by a decision of the public institution must be heard. This right to entails that the decision makers hears the representation of both sides before condemning a person. In the present case, the Court thoroughly examined the documentation furnished to the Commissioner of Valuations. The communications make it 9 abundantly clear that the property is part of a litigation before this Court. The valuation is in preparation of the sale by the parties following a court order. The proceeds of the sale will be shar ed between the parties according to the Court order. In my considered view, it is inevitable to have a disgruntled person in the process. As such, any step taken must be transparent and explained. The explanation is to curb any fear of an appearance of doubt, bias or preferential treatment. This is attainable through several fundamental principles and steps. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is active participation of the affected persons. In the present case, it is settled that the Appl icant was informed through the Legal Practitioner on the court record. However, the Legal Practitioner never responded to any well -meaning communication from the Respondent. In essence this conduct waived the right to be involved. Now that this was the ca se, the Commissioner of Valuations needed to follow procedure of fairness in procuring services from a service provider. The order of the Court entailed engaging a service provider. Rules of procurement in the public and private sector demand that there is fairness and objectivity in assessing potential service providers before they are actually offered an opportunity to serve. In the event that the service sought is unique and/or is only provided by a single supplier or by government, this requirement is j ustifiably waived. A thorough examination of the correspondence from the Commissioner of Valuations to the Respondent does not show that the office of the Commissioner of Valuation only had one qualified officer for valuation purposes. Further, this Court has not seen any quotations or bids from other valuers in addition to the one appointed by the Commissioner of Valuations. Consequently, this Court has not seen the reasons why the Commissioner of Valuations appointed this valuer to do the valuation. To th is Court, the identification and appointment of the valuer was not transparent. The order of this Court in paragraph 3 indicated that ‘upon such determination, the two houses must be sold at the current market value and the proceeds be shared per the cour t’s ruling of 45 percent to the Petitioner and 55 percent to the Respondent . This Court agrees that is part of the order did not specify as to how the property should be sold. Although this is the case, Counsel was duty bound to proceed either by seeking a further order from the Court on how to engage services of an agent. The order would then have explained how to identify the agent in a transparent manner. In ordinary circumstances, such a process would not be through single sourcing. It always involves a ssessment and scrutiny of not less than three quotations from agents by the Registrar. This is just to ensure that there is not only fairness but transparency. In the event that the Applicant continued with his silence, the Court would have 10 proceeded by scrutinising the two quotations from the Respondent and make a determination on who will conduct the sale. I f the Registrar is not satisfied that the bidders have the requisite qualifications, then the Sherriff would proceed to sale the property by public auction. This Court thoroughly read the written arguments from the parties herein. The parties filed sworn statements in support and opposition of the present application to set aside the order of sale of the matrimonial property. This Court listened attenti vely to the arguments from both sides. It is abundantly clear that this Court ordered that the property should be sold. What is troubling is the manner in which the one who valued the property was also entrusted with the sale of the same without verificati on of his capacity. His objectivity would have been established through a comparative assessment of his bid together with other bidders. The absence of such stages in the process is procedurally fatal. The combination of duties intrinsically create an appe arance of bias and conflict of interest. Considering the totality of the events in this case, this Court holds that it is only reasonable and fair to set aside the order because of procedural impropriety. The absence of a paper trail from the Respondent as per the request of this Court is problematic because it does not guarantee fairness, reasonableness, objectivity and accountability on the part of the service provider. The Applicant submitted that he should not be punished because of the mistakes of his former Counsel. He prayed that this Court exercises its power of balancing justice and convenience in his favor. The Respondent hold a contrary view. They submitted that the notice, knowledge and actions or omissions of Counsel for the Applicant are bindi ng on him. This Court examined the sworn statements of the Applicant. This Court further examined the arguments raised by both parties. It is clear that from the time the Appellant received the communication on the sale of the houses, he has taken swift and expeditious steps to be heard. He engaged services of another Counsel who made the two applications. To this Court such a reaction cannot go unnoticed. This Court agrees that the Applicant should not be punished due to the conduct of his legal practition er. This far, this Court grants the prayer by the Applicant. The order for sale of the matrimonial property at Njewa 9.420 is set aside in its entirety. Since the current situation is because of the Applicant, the costs are for the Petitioner. CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS Following the holding of this Court, these consequential orders are necessary; 1. The Applicant must bear all the costs incurred in the sale of the house, the legal fees for the present application and the costs incurred in the valuation and sale of the house. The parties are 11 at liberty to agree on these costs within 7 days from today. This is by 27th May, 2026. If they are unable to agree, they must file bill of costs for taxation or assessment purposes within 7 days which is by 5th June, 2026. Costs must be assessed within 7 days which is by 12th June, 2026; 2. The parties must value the house within 30days from today. a. The parties must file two quotations from certified property valuers to the Registrar of the High Court of Malawi, Family and Probate Division Principal Registry, within 7 days from which is by 27th May, 2026; b. The Registrar must assess the four quotations and choose one service provider. The Registrar must communicate her decision to the parties in writing within 7 days from receipt of the quotations. This is by 5th June, 2026; c. The parties are given 7 days from the day they receive the decision of the Registrar to express their reservations in writing. This is by 12th June, 2026; d. The Registrar must make a further decision on the reservations. The second decision is final. The Registrar then has to communicate to the parties in writing the second and final decision within 7 days which is by 19th June, 2026; e. If no reservations are brought to the Registrar, then the valuer must perform the valuation with 21 days from the expiry of the 7 days. This is by 3rd July, 2026; f. Once the valuation is done, then it must be communicated in writing to the parties herein and the Registrar within 7 days which is by 10th July, 2026; g. Any party who intends to pu rchase the share of the other must indicate so in writing to the Registrar and the other party within 2 days after receiving the valuation report. This is by 12th July, 2026; h. The other party has to respond to the offer in writing to the offeree within 2 da ys which is by 14th July, 2026; i. Once the acceptance is made, payment must be done within 21 days from the date that the other accepts to sale their allocation. This is by 4th August, 2026; j. If either of the parties fails to purchase the share of the other, the property must be re- offered to the one who purchased the property under the exparte order. The re -offer must be in writing and the offeror must respond in writing within 7 days which is by 11 th August, 2026; k. In that case, payment must be done within 30 days which is by 11th September, 2026. 12 These deadlines are strict and must not be extended in any way. In the event of any failure to adhere to these directions, the Sherrifs must take over the process and update this Court on the progress of the sale every fort-night. DISCIPLINE TO COUNSEL On 2nd April, 2024, Counsel Silvester Ayuba James filed a notice of appointment as a Legal Practitioner for the Applicant. Throughout the proceeding, Counsel Ayuba James was the Legal Practitioner for the Applicant. Counsel Ayuba James wrote this Court on 17th March, 2026 and he confirms that he acted for the Applicant in this matter from the beginning until the final order was made and through the sale process. To this Court, Counsel knew about the steps taken by the R espondent. This Court read the lamentations of the Applicant on how Counsel James ignored him when he inquired about the progress of this matter. This Court sees the painful lamentations from the Applicant and the inconvenience has he suffered due to non -communication from his previous legal practitioner. The Applicant sought the intervention of this Court to balance the scales of justice in order to prevent any alienation from the property. Counsel Ayuba James is a Legal Practitioner as defined by Section 2 of the Legal Education and Legal Practitioners Act-LELPA. By virtue of this position, he owes a duty of candour to this Court since he is an officer of the Court under Section 32 of the LELPA. As this Court examines these provisions, they are directly reinforcing the Code of Ethics of Legal Practitioners in Malawi as promulgated under Section 36 of the LELPA. The Code centres on the relationship of the Lawyer and the justice system, competence, relationship of a lawyer to the profession, relationship of a lawyer with other lawyers, accessibility … and breaches of the Code. The Code intends to strengthen the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. In the present case, the most relevant being Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 and 19 of the Code of Ethics. For a Legal Practitioner who had charged a sum of K50m to represent a client, which amount this Court considers outrageous, his conduct was supposed to correspond with the duty he owed to his client, his fellow Counsel and most importantly helping the Court to make correct and fair decisions. The sequence of events in this case are outlined above. The consequential orders have far -reaching effects to the parties herein as well as third parties. Some of the consequences are financial in nature. All these inconveniences in my considered view are due to Counsel Ayuba James’ conduct in this matter. This Court invokes its powers under Section 87 as read with Section 89 (1) of the LELPA as well as Section 43 of the Constitution and summons Counsel Silvester Ayuba Jam es to show cause why he should not be found in breach of his duty as an officer of the Court under Section 32 of the LELPA as 13 read together with Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Ethics under Section 36 of the LELPA. Counsel is informed of his right to remain silent, to testify and/or to call witnesses even where he has not testified. If he decides to either testify or call witnesses, Counsel has 21 days from today to prepare for his case. Counsel Silvester Ayuba James is at liberty to access the entir e Court record within that period and file his response within the said 21 days which is by 10th June, 2026. This Court will hear Counsel on 1st July, 2026 @9AM physically. It is so ordered. PRONOUNCED IN CHAMBERS ON 19th MAY, 2026@4:30PM HONORABLE JUSTICE JEAN ROSEMARY KAYIRA JUDGE