THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 0129 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
SAMUEL BAGUMA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
PRIDE MICROFINANCE UGANDA LTD ::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN MUSOTA
Samuel Baguma filed this application for Judicial Review through his Lawyers M/S Akampumuza & Co. Advocates. It is by way of Notice of Motion under Articles 50 and 42 of the Constitution, S.3 of The Judicature (Amendment) Act No. 3 of 2002, Rules 3,4,6,7 and 8 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.
The reliefs sought by the applicant are set out in the Notice of Motion as follows:
- An order of certiorari doth issue calling into court the record of proceedings containing the decision to remove the applicant from his office.
- A declaration that the respondent’s decision to prosecute the applicant on an account of a report which was done without giving him a fair hearing was ultra vires, illegal and of no legal consequence.
- An order of prohibition doth issue prohibiting the respondent from removing the applicant from his job as Head of Department of Information Communication Technology.
- An order of mandamus doth issue directing the respondents to restore the applicant’s salary and other payments including his arrears.
- A declaration that the Board of Directors of Respondent are in office illegally, their statutory one five-year term having expired in 2010.
- An order of injunction doth issue restraining the respondent from proceeding to implement the decision to remove the applicant from his office and/or prosecute him based on allegations contained in the same report.
- An order for special damages of Shs.106,148,231/= calculated as follows:-
i) Salary arrears for 4 months = Shs.33,985,672/=
ii) Salary arrears January – July = Shs. 1,642,290/=
iii) Accumulated unpaid leave –
2 months = Shs.16,992,836/=
iv) NSSF contributions of 15% = Shs.53,527,433/=
B. In the alternative but without prejudice to the foregoing, lost prospective income of Shs.1,943,174,706/= as follows:-
i) Terminal benefits under a scheme in which Applicant so far had over Shs.20 million already accumulated.
ii) Monthly Salary for 16 years at shs.8,496,418/= per month.
8,496,418 x 16 = 1,631,312,256/=.
iii) Monthly NSSF company contribution for 16 years -
8,496,418 x 16 x 15% x 12 = Shs.244,696,838/=
iv) Monthly Terminal benefits scheme company contribution 5% of gross salary for 16 years - 8,496,418 x 5% x12 x 16 = 81,565,612/=.
v) Annual Bonus of shs.350,000/= per annum for 16 years –
350,000/= x 16 = 5,600,000/=
Total of (A) + (b) = 106,148,231 + 1,943,174,706 =2,049,322,937/=
- An order for exemplary damages.
- General damages.
That the costs of and occasioned by this motion be provided by the Respondent or as the court may direct.
That on the hearing of this motion, the Applicant will use the Affidavit and exhibits. Copies of which accompany this motion.
That the grounds of this application are as follows:
- The Respondent has acted in breach of the Constitution and the Employment Act and threatens to continue acting illegally.
- The Respondent is a company in which government of Uganda owns 100% shares and has a constitutional duty to act fairly and justly while dealing with affairs of its employees and other persons appearing before it.
- The applicant while in employment of the respondent as Head of Department of Information Communication Technology was a victim of a plot to punish him by removing him from his office for fabricated non-existent allegations or accusations in reprisal for his professional stand against interference with his schedule of duties and irregular procurement which the applicant advised against.
- During the business of the respondent there was a perpetual software failure supplied by the respondent’s vendor/supplier Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya and applicant recommended a change of software supplier as the respondent’s software had faults and loopholes that were causing financial loss to the respondent’s business but his professional advice was ignored and decision taken that the vendor/supplier should upgrade, its malfunctioning software reason whereof many more faults and loopholes were introduced into the system and exploited by dubious individuals to commit fraud leading to continued financial losses.
- Bank of Uganda the Regulator did conduct independent investigations which established that the faults and frauds were caused by Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya.
- The Respondent also deployed services of a company which similarly established that the cause of the fraud was the vendor/supplier’s system failure Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya and its agents.
- That the password which was used to dubiously access the system was in custody of the Respondent’s Managing Director who instigated and acted with Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya and Summit Consulting Ltd the company hired to investigate to falsely accuse the applicant with its fraudulent use and further claimed that he went to Nairobi for a training using company resources but he did not attend.
- That despite the above findings the same faults were wrongly attributed to the applicant who was neither an employee nor agent of the vendor/supplier and this was done without giving the applicant a fair hearing.
- The Respondent irregularly purported to remove the Applicant from his office of Head ICT without any reason whatsoever under what it coined investigated suspension.
- The Applicant was denied the record of proceedings of the alleged hearing following which he had a right of Appeal to the Respondent but this has been fettered, despite demands and numerous telephone calls Applicant made to Respondent’s lawyer Sebalu, Lule & Co. Advocates.
- The applicant by the above actions was denied his right of appeal by the respondent’s Company Secretaries of Sebalu Lule & Co. Advocates and to date remains without a remedy.
- The Respondent’s Board of Director’s one term statutory period expired in 2010 but they continued to act illegally and purported to remove applicant from his office.
- That the orders are necessary for purposes of achieving a fair and just disposal of the applicant’s grievance and it is just and equitable that the orders sought be granted.
The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant who deponed that:
“2. The 2nd Respondent is a government controlled limited Liability Company incorporated under the laws of Uganda in which the Government of Uganda is the majority shareholder.
3. He was first employed by the Respondent as Information Communication Technology Manager on 29/4/2008 and later he was promoted to become Head of Department of Information Communication Technology. (See attached Annexture :A”).
4. In the course of execution of his duties and roles as specified in the contract and its attached schedule, he got a lot of interferences from officials of the Respondent who would bypass his and/or disregard his recommendations regarding procurement and routine usage of Information Communication Technology (ICT) Equipment and software.
5. Prior to that, he recommended the Respondent to procure a new vendor for core banking application but officials of the Respondent refused his professional advice and instead opted to contract the then existing vendor Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya who purported that it would update the system to levels of the new specifications, when it did not have that capacity.
6. The respondent was also advised against the decision not to procure a new vendor by a Board of Director but the advice was similarly ignored.
7. Once it secured the offer, the existing vendor Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya which had offered to upgrade its existing system for free, turned around to change and has so far been paid over shs.600 Million.
8. From then onwards, he became a target of victimization by Respondent’s officials who were colluding with the vendor to fleece the Government of Uganda’s resources in the Respondent and therefore perceived him as a stumbling block to their project.
9. The vendor from that point on started bypassing him, the Head of ICT Department and directly dealt with the Managing Director in all key transactions.
10. He frequently pointed out that the vendor grossly mismanaged the system resulting in a multiplicity of problems, frauds and illegal practices that caused financial losses to the Respondent and Government of Uganda.
11. New passwords for the ICT systems were created and directly given to Ms. Veronica Namagembe the Respondent’s Managing Director and the vendor later changed the passwords without his knowledge or involvement and the two kept the applicant in the cold about what was taking place in the very department I was heading despite my protests.
12. These passwords were irregularly used to access money on the system.
13. The Respondent contracted a company Summit Consulting Ltd which in its questionable report grossed over infractions by the vendor and despite clear evidence were influenced to visit them on me. (Copy of the Report attached as Annexture “B”).
14. It was found that all the loopholes through which the fraud was perpetuated, were due to functionality gaps in the BR application as stated on page 33 and the vendor’s failure to implement key system controls as stated on page 33 (2)(vix).
15. The respondent lumped these systems failing on the applicant when he had on numerous occasions warned that backend deletion will result into fraud but he was ignored. (See copy of the communication in November 2010 attached as Annexture “C”).
16. Under ref. 3.0 on page 26 “loss due to functionality gaps in BR application” mention various people including the applicant as responsible for the loss.
17. The software vendor M/S Craft Silicon Ltd of Kenya supplied a defective system and took no effort to keep the super password secret which allowed the fraudster to take advantages (See page 27. Ref. 1.0 (v) this mentioned in the 1st forensic report of Security Solution (SRS) after the October 22 2010 fraud the vendor bore the whole responsibility for the fraud.
18. In the detailed findings item 1.0 on page 28 (a-b) it clearly points out the loopholes the perpetrators used to commit the fraud which were communicated to the vendor and it failed to close them which further confirms a lack of competency by the investigators or collusion to frame me.
19. Item 1.1 (page 28) it’s stated that whoever committed the fraud was custodian the REALM password and this was Ms. Veronica Namagembe the Managing Director.
20. On page 26 of the report, the company established that the frauds under the column “nature of fraud” had their genesis from the functionality gaps in the BR application” especially allowing “backend deletion/alteration of records” to fix wrong/incorrect entries (as work around) in the system.
21. Despite communication that the back-end alteration was dangerous, nothing was done by the vendor to fix them.
22. There was a clear cover up by the company as the issue of the REALM password of which the Managing Director was custodian no reflected in the report.
23. The applicant had for long raised issues and the vendor had confirmed in its various E-mail correspondences that it was responsible for the faults, and delegated its officer Mr. Njuki to manage all the processes that were being wrongly and maliciously visited on him in the shoddy report of Summit Consulting Ltd. (See copy of E-mail attached as Annexture “C” above).
24. The frauds subsequently were not his responsibility but continued due to the wrong decisions Respondent took to upgrade an already defective system even when the procurement of a new system had commenced.
25. All the functionality gaps mentioned in the report existed in the old version and he often communicated that these be addressed.
26. The vendor’s upgrade also introduced inter-branch transactions which turned out to be a negative as fraudsters used it for fraud in which clients were able to move to a different branch from the one where the account was opened and after pictures and fingerprints were altered by the fraudsters, and money would be withdrawn easily by persons at a different branch.
27. What is called “unauthorized loans disbursement” under ref.2.0 on page 26 were actually trying to implement work rounds on the defective system from the vendor as variously documents regarding “backend deletions/alterations etc. (See copy of Bank of Uganda ROE Report 2008 marked “D”).
28. In item 1.2 page 30 the clients having multiple accounts was due to functionality gaps in the vendors system as clearly showed out on page 33, 30 xv “fraud risk” and the failure to implement a normalized database with strict referential integrity by the vendor allowed duplication of client details, and the responsibility doesn’t lie with the applicant.
29. In item 2.0 unauthorised load disbursement Backend deletion and alteration through scripts were brought to the attention of Ms. Veronica Namagembe the Managing Director and Respondent including the fraud risk thereof and nothing was done.
30. The alterations were used as work around of the defective core backing application and the system lacked an audit trail that would have assisted in monitoring what was being done and this is documented in the SRS report.
31. All the scripts were sent from the vendor as a ‘fix’ for their defective system and on page 33 (v-ix) the investigators clearly show that “fraud risk exposure” was due to the vendor.
32. In Section 3.0 “loss due to functionality gaps in the BR application”, the title is self explanatory and the applicant was not the developer of the system and he communicated those gaps to the vendor and management, who ignored them.
33. In paragraph 4.0 loss due to mismanagement of CS contract account, it is stated that the applicant did not carry out regular contract performance yet he made regular reports regarding vendor’s system.
34. Other syndicated fraudulent withdrawals in item 5.0 were frauds a result of a combination of factors as follows:
a) Functionality gaps in BR (see item 3.0 + (item 2.v-ix page 33);
b) The vendor’s failure to keep the system password secret i.e. it was had coded, so it didn’t change and was known to everyone before he joined the company;
c) The handling of the password by the custodian who was Ms. Veronica Namagembe the Managing Director.
35. On 20th June 2011, the applicant was suddenly sent on what the Respondent’s Secretary called INVESTIGATIVE SUSPENSION. (Copy of letter attached as Annexture “E”).
36. This was a mere witch hunt and victimization conveniently crafted to justify the Respondent’s punishing the applicant without cause, to buy time as officials concocted allegations against me.
37. He was also punished further by a reduction of his salary without cause and the respondent proceeded to subject him to half pay and also directed him to handover office property and he was irregularly kept on investigative suspension. (Copy attached as Annexture “F”).
38. The Bank of Uganda the Regulator independently carried out an investigation which established that the faults and frauds were caused by Craft Silicon Ltd the software supplier/vendor. (See attached Annexture “G” and “H”).
39. Due to the pressure put on the vendor to deliver, the vendor fabricated many lies including one to the effect that the applicant travelled to attend a course at the premises for two weeks and only attended for one day. (See copy of the hotel documents collectively attached as “I”).
40. When the Respondent’s officials and the vendor realized the obvious falsity in Summit Consulting Ltd attributing to him wrongly, the vendor’s irregularities that were clearly arising from its system manipulations, failures and deliberate frauds, they sought to manufacture yet another lie.
41. The vendor alleged that the applicant had not attended training in Nairobi and that he never used the company money and never stayed at the Hotel.
42. The Respondent later on summoned the applicant and concocted all manner of allegations that they freshly made up against me. (Copy attached as Annexture “J”).
43. He disputed the above lies in a written formal letter to the Respondent answering the new concoctions with a receipt from the Hillpark Hotel of 7/3/2009. (Copy attached as Annexture “K”).
44. Following the above documents, he appeared for a Disciplinary Hearing on 12/8/2011 and presented his case but the committee was not interested in his version of events because of the inherent bias of the members.
45. His very accusers such as Ms. Veronica Namagembe the Managing Director who was also the custodian on the password sat on the committee throughout the process.
46. Throughout his employment he did exemplary work as shown in his performance appraisals, had never received any caution, warning nor been a subject of disciplinary hearing. (Copy of the appraisal attached as Annexture “L1”, “L2” and letter of appreciation “M”).
47. After realizing that he had no case, the Respondent’s Secretary, Sebalu Lule & Co. Advocates made incessant calls using Telephone No. 0782 304716 to 0752 502424 telling to resign or else they will get a reason to dismiss him summarily.
48. When he refused the blackmail to resign his job without cause and the Respondent on 22/8/2011 wrote purporting to dismiss him on yet another new concocted charge of poor performance. (See Annexture “N”).
49. He was never informed of the decisions of the hearing by its Chairman nor was any right to appeal explained as required by the company’s standard procedures.
50. The purported dismissal was communicated by the company secretaries Sebalu, Lule & Co. Advocates and not the Chairman of the Disciplinary Hearing, and before h was allowed and enabled to appeal.
51. The Board that purported to dismiss him was illegally in office, it having been appointed in 2005 it’s a 5 year term having ended in 2010.
52. He has to date not been availed with the record of proceedings of the disciplinary hearing and has been kept in the dark on the passage of the mandatory five (5) days within which he was entitled to appeal.
53. The purported dismissal was only engineered as an act of victimization for his objective views on the botched project the vendors were implementing with visible deficiencies that led to outright fraud.
54. As part of the victimization, there were salary reviews in which he was deliberately left out and his salary kept stagnant despite the change of his title and positive appraisals. (See attached Annextures “O” and “P”).
55. The refusal to review his salary was deliberately done to deprive him of income, motivation and frustrate him into leaving his job.
56. The Respondent’s Secretaries, Sebalu, Lule & Co. Advocates wrote a letter claiming that the applicant was to be paid within seven days one month salary in lieu of notice, accrued leave payment, his August salary and other terminal dues and a certificate of service which as per letter were to be paid seven days as required by law but the same has never been paid to date yet he duly handed over on 28th June 2011. (See attached Annextures “Q”).
57. He is entitled to a salary of UGX.8,496,418/=, annual bonus of Shs.350,000/- and annual leave of which he accumulated two months paid annual leave among others.
58. The applicant is aged 39 years and was on a full time employment contract of service and the Respondent’s retirement age is 55 years, he still had 16 years of active service to earn a monthly salary of Shs. 8,496,418/= x 12 x 16 = 1,631,312m256/= + 15% as Company NSSF monthly contribution, making a total of 1,876,009,094/=
59. He was entitled to terminal benefits under a scheme and so far had over Shs.20,000,000/= already accumulated. See copies of the manual resource attached as Annexture “R”).
60. By the Respondent’s actions, he has lost and will lose over Shs.2,049,322,937/= calculated as follows: Salary arrears for 4 months = Shs.33,985,672/=; Salary arrears January – July = Shs. 1,642,290/=; Accumulated unpaid leave –2 months Shs.16,992,836/=; NSSF contributions of 15% =Shs.53,527,433/=, Monthly Salary for 16 years at shs.8,496,418/= per month 8,496,418/= x 12 x 16 = Shs.1,631,312,256/=; Monthly NSSF company contribution for 16 years - 8,496,418 x 16 x 10% x 12 = Shs.163,131,225/=; Monthly Terminal benefits scheme company contribution 5% of gross salary for 16 years - 8,496,418 x 5% x12 x 16 = 81,565,612/=; Annual Bonus of shs.350,000/= per annum for 16 years – 350,000/= x 16 = 5,600,000/=.
61. The Respondent treated him unfairly and condemned him unheard, tagged him with criminal threats and continues to threaten to hand him over to the Police detention and prosecution based on the concocted allegations.
62. He continues to live under fear of irregular arrest and detention based on false allegations and this will take away his liberty, and his livelihood and his family of a wife and children and greatly inconvenience him.
63. Unless stopped, the Respondent will continue with their illegal acts disguised as “investigation” to prejudice his employment career and they will irreparably cause him injury to his right to employment, liberty, freedom and tarnish his good name.
64. He shall forever lose his right to be heard and to practice his profession and property in his employment benefits if the actions of the Respondent are allowed to stand and be implemented and no award of damages can compensate this loss.
65. The balance of convenience is in the applicant’s favour as the Respondent will not be inconvenienced in any way as they shall not face any loss but he stands to lose his career if his professional profile continues to be prejudiced on basis of baseless accusations and unending accusations.
Learned counsel for the respondent did not file any affidavit in reply. The respondent was however allowed to file submissions on points of law wherein he raised a preliminary point of law that the claim by the applicant does not fall under the ambit of Judicial Review. That the respondent Prime Microfinance Ltd is not amenable to Judicial Review because its relationship with the applicant is that of “Master” and “Servant” in a limited liability company which is a matter of private law in which the applicant ought to have sought private law remedies. Further that the respondent is not set up by any statute and its officers are not public officers or exercising public function. That the respondent is a company and its shareholders are separate entities and the character of share holder does not necessarily determine the character of company and the company does not derive its character from its share holders. That even if the respondent is a public authority the power to dismiss the applicant was not derived from statute setting it up. It was derived from the contract.
Mr. Luswata learned counsel for the respondent raised a second objection that alternative remedies exist and therefore this dispute ought to have been referred to an appropriate fora and not to Judicial Review. That alternative remedies exist in the Employment Act 2006 where trial can be conducted through viva voce evidence.
In reply to the preliminary objections, Dr. Akampumuza for the applicant submitted that counsel for the respondent has misrepresented the nature of the respondent, its decisions, character and applicability of the remedy of Judicial Review to it.
According to the applicant, the respondent is amenable to Judicial Review irrespective of whether or not an alternative remedy exists. That by virtue of Article 42 and 50 of the Constitution, the applicant is seeking to enforce his fundamental right to a fair hearing and just treatment by administrative persons or body. That from the remedies provided in S. 36 of the Judicature Act there is no distinction made by the Statute between private and public bodies. Learned counsel for the applicant further invited this court to take judicial notice that the Judicature Act was amended in 2000 pursuant to the promulgation of Article 28(1), 21 (1), 42 and 44 (c) of the 1995 Constitution as a modification of the Common Law which was then existing and very restrictive on the remedy of Judicial Review and discriminate those citizens that suffered unfair practices at the hands of private bodies.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondent is a government body and therefore a public body both dejure and defacto because the government owns 100% of its shares and under S. 84 of the Microfinance Deposit Taking Institutions Act, it is stated that an officer or servant of the Institution shall be deemed a person employed in the Public Service. That the respondent is set up by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to act fairly in the discharge of its functions and employ basic rights of a fair hearing.
I have considered the submissions by respective counsel, the law applicable and the authorities cited for my assistance. Both learned counsel agree that Judicial Review is concerned with the decision making process and not the decision itself. The only issue of contention is to whom is Judicial Review amenable?
Whether the respondent is a private or public body, I agree with the submission by Dr. Akampumuza that it is amenable to Judicial Review. In view of the provisions of the 1995 Constitution and Ss 33, 36, 37 and 38 of the Judicature Act, there is no longer a requirement in those provisions which restricts Judicial Review orders to only issue to public bodies and offices that have corporate personality. The power for Judicial Review extends to the acts and orders of a competent statutory public authority which has power to impose a liability or give a decision, which determines the rights or property of the attached parties. Much of Judicial Reviews utility exists because it is highly flexible and when a statute does not provide for a Review or Appeal, Judicial Review’s inherent flexibility provided the citizen with a remedy where one might otherwise not exist. Therefore this court will not endorse the views of Mr. Luswata learned counsel for the respondent which are restrictive and limiting.
I am in agreement with the holding by Bamwine J (as he then was) in John Teira & Anor Vs Makerere University Council HCMC 0049 of 2010 (unreported) that:
“any person natural or artificial bound to explain and defend in any forum the decision he/she makes in the performance of his/her duties is answerable to Judicial Review. The decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and give effect to it. This involves identifying the parameters set by the empowering statute and having regard to whether the decision maker has exercised a power for an improper purpose; made a mistake of fact; or applied the law inconsistently. The rules of natural justice must be applied in all circumstances.
In Owor Arthur and 8 others Vs Gulu University MA 18 of 2007, Kasule J (as he then was) summed it all thus:
“The essence of judicial review jurisdiction is for this court to ensure that the machinery of justice is observed and controlled in its exercise by those inferior bodies in society that happen to be vested with legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects. Such bodies or individuals have a duty to act judicially. Prima facie a duty to act judicially arises in the exercise of power to deprive one of a livelihood, or legal status, or liberty, or property rights.
The respondent is therefore amenable to Judicial Review.
The next thing for my consideration is whether the cause of action in this application is fit for Judicial Review. It is trite law that Judicial Review is concerned not with the decision but rather the decision making process and assessment of the manner in which the decision made. It is not an appeal and Court’s jurisdiction is exercised in a supervisory manner not to vindicate the rights as such but to ensure that public powers are exercised in accordance with basic standards of fairness and rationality.
The applicant in this case has sought inter alia issues concerning his employment relationship with the respondent, legality of the respondent’s Board of Director’s stay in office, four months’ salary arrears and other salary arrears from January to July 2011, accumulated unpaid leave for two months, NSSF contribution of 15%, lost prospective income worth 1,943,174,706/=, exemplary and punitive damages.
The applicant goes on to enumerate how he was a victim of a plot to punish him as a refusal for his professional stand against interference in his schedule of work. He also says that his advice regarding change of software was ignored leading to financial loss, because of the resultant faults and loopholes which were exploited by dubious individuals to commit fraud.
The applicant went on to enumerate several grievances in paragraphs 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 as part of the grounds for his application.
The grounds are elaborated in the supporting affidavit by the applicant. I cannot reproduce the same in this ruling because it is so lengthy.
From my reading of the pleadings by the applicant, especially his affidavits and submissions particularly paragraphs 4 to 34, and 40 to 43 and 46, I have found that the applicant is trying to show that the decision reached by the respondent was not right. The applicant has strenuously tried to explain the case he put up during his disciplinary hearing as if he was inviting this court to sit in appeal regarding the decision of the disciplinary committee. This is not the concern of Judicial Review. As I have stated already, Judicial Review is about the decision making process and is not concerned with the merits of the decision. The entire submission at page 4 and 5 of the applicant’s submission is irrelevant in Judicial Review because it is aimed at directing the court into investigating the correctness of the decision of the committee which cannot be done in Judicial Review. Judicial Review cannot vindicate the decision reached but only looks at the process leading to the decision. It cannot use these proceedings to determine whether the applicant was victimized or dismissed for no cause. Neither can Judicial Review determine claims for per diem or daily allowance or denial of salary increment. Such claims can be determined in an ordinary suit where evidence has to be adduced to prove the same.
Judicial Review does not concern itself with determination of private rights which is done in ordinary suits. It is through such a suit that the nature of the applicant’s claims would be properly determined on plaint.
What the applicant has sought through Judicial Review cannot be given. The application by the applicant is therefore improperly before court. It will be struck out with costs. I so order.
J U D G E
Court Clerk: Kauma Jolly.
Court:- Ruling delivered in the presence of the applicant this 2nd day of February 2015.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR (CIVIL DIVISION)