MUTABAAZI LUGAZIYA - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by MUTABAAZI LUGAZIYA

Journal of African and International Law, 2012

Courts exist as civilized forums where the litigants go so as to have their legal problems sorted... more Courts exist as civilized forums where the litigants go so as to have their legal problems sorted out, according to the law. Increasingly, by the way they apply the law, Courts are perceived today, as legal theatres, where justice is subordinated to bewildering legal technicalities, the consequence of which, most members of the laity, those non-trained in law, as well as some lawyers, are seriously contemplating resorting to self-help schemes. A litigant loses property which he knows to be his, and the opponent, through the law, acquires the right to property which he himself knows is not his. One loses a right to which he is entitled; the other acquires a right to which he is not. This paper discusses two recent decisions which, have elicited reactions, and have added a voice to the call for the reformation of the judiciary mind-set, so that it should be more focused on the overall requirement to do justice, which is its raison d'etre. It poses the questions, why should persons who knock at the doors of the Court, hoping to find justice, be punished for mistakes they did not do; why they be punished for mistakes, when it is common that human beings have a propensity to commit errors, why turn the Courts into academic institutions, where it is expected that the manipulation of legal technicalities, not equity, should win the day, sometimes, giving the right where it should not have gone? Should every slight aberration of the law, be visited with a denial of justice?

Journal of African and International Law, 2012

Courts exist as civilized forums where the litigants go so as to have their legal problems sorted... more Courts exist as civilized forums where the litigants go so as to have their legal problems sorted out, according to the law. Increasingly, by the way they apply the law, Courts are perceived today, as legal theatres, where justice is subordinated to bewildering legal technicalities, the consequence of which, most members of the laity, those non-trained in law, as well as some lawyers, are seriously contemplating resorting to self-help schemes. A litigant loses property which he knows to be his, and the opponent, through the law, acquires the right to property which he himself knows is not his. One loses a right to which he is entitled; the other acquires a right to which he is not. This paper discusses two recent decisions which, have elicited reactions, and have added a voice to the call for the reformation of the judiciary mind-set, so that it should be more focused on the overall requirement to do justice, which is its raison d'etre. It poses the questions, why should persons who knock at the doors of the Court, hoping to find justice, be punished for mistakes they did not do; why they be punished for mistakes, when it is common that human beings have a propensity to commit errors, why turn the Courts into academic institutions, where it is expected that the manipulation of legal technicalities, not equity, should win the day, sometimes, giving the right where it should not have gone? Should every slight aberration of the law, be visited with a denial of justice?