against them without having afforded them an opportunity to be heard. Against the background the Court has adopted a view that the [12] letters by Respondent addressed to Applicants were equivocal 1st and therefore subject to various interpretations. The one assigned to them by the Applicants is perceived by the Court to have been reasonable. It was incumbent upon the Respondent to have 1st unambiguously expressed his letter. This is further aggravated by the fact that Applicants allegations and they were thrown out of office and barred from attending to activities of Council had not been denied by the Respondents. The Respondent had not 1st referred to any legal authority authorizing him to have written the letter to the Applicants. The Court in interfacing with finds that [13] Section 5 (i) Section 6 (i) the former section is a foundational one and that the nomination provided for therein is a representative one. It is in this background that the Applicants had been nominated by the which had a LCD majority in the National Assembly at the relevant time. In the instant case, it has not been denied that the Applicants had ceased being members of the and that they had not been mandated by LCD that party to be in the Council. The paradox is that they have not in any manner whatsoever, disclosed to the Court the party which they are representing in the Council at the moment. In the understanding of this Court the right to a three year term of (3)
against them without having afforded them an opportunity to be heard. [12] Against the background the Court has adopted a view that the letters by 1st Respondent addressed to Applicants were equivocal and therefore subject to various interpretations. The one assigned to them by the Applicants is perceived by the Court to have been reasonable. It was incumbent upon the 1st Respondent to have unambiguously expressed his letter. This is further aggravated by the fact that Applicants allegations and they were thrown out of office and barred from attending to activities of Council had not been denied by the Respondents. The 1st Respondent had not referred to any legal authority authorizing him to have written the letter to the Applicants. [13] The Court in interfacing Section 5 (i) with Section 6 (i) finds that the former section is a foundational one and that the nomination provided for therein is a representative one. It is in this background that the Applicants had been nominated by the LCD which had a majority in the National Assembly at the relevant time. In the instant case, it has not been denied that the Applicants had ceased being members of the LCD and that they had not been mandated by that party to be in the Council. The paradox is that they have not in any manner whatsoever, disclosed to the Court the party which they are representing in the Council at the moment. In the understanding of this Court the right to a three (3) year term of