Wakili Kibatala: Mheshimiwa Jaji ukiisoma hukumu hii UGANDA Vs OKUMU REGAN AND OTHERS pingamizi letu juu ya diary ya shahidi utaliona ni sahihi

Kibatala: Mheshimiwa Jaji niende kwenye hii Kesi ya Wenzetu ya UGANDA Vs OKUMU REGAN AND OTHERS Kama Kuna Kesi itakuisaidia basi kesi hii.. Na Kupeleka Ukurasa wa Tano, Sisi tumesema Kwamba Shahidi Ni INCOMPETENT.

Kibatala: Kama unaona Kuna ugumu wa kufanya uamuzi kwenye kesi hii naomba itumie kesi ya UGANDA Vs OKUMU REGAN AND OTHERS.. Ni hayo tuh Mheshimiwa Jaji.. Kibatala anakaa chini kwa utaratibu maalum kabisa.

Kesi yenyewe hii hapa.

Shahidi mwenyewe MDA huu mahakamani,

Akiwa na ki-notebook chake[emoji12]

DeepPond said:

Shahidi mwenyewe MDA huu mahakamani,

Akiwa na ki-notebook chake[emoji12]View attachment 2012829

Click to expand...

Huyu Judge has no intellect to comprehend such a long , detailed legal narration . Mtanisamehe, uwezo huo hana kabisa na sijui kama hata Kiingereza atakielewa..... I am sorry for the comment, lkn kwa mwenendo ninaomuona nao katika kesi za Mwanza na hii, hawezi kusoma akaelewa.

Retired said:

Huyu Judge has no intellect to comprehend such a long , detailed legal narration . Mtanisamehe, uwezo huo hana kabisa na sijui kama hata Kiingereza atakielewa..... I am sorry for the comment, lkn kwa mwenendo ninaomuona nao katika kesi za Mwanza na hii, hawezi kusoma akaelewa.

Click to expand...

Naona hata Kibatala AMESOMA NA HAKUELEWA

comte said:

Naona hata Kibatala AMESOMA NA HAKUELEWA

Click to expand...

Your opinion/observation

Retired said:

Your opinion/observation

Click to expand...

it is well supported by the court judgement

5. It was within the District Court's discretion to assure that the jury would hear the investigator's full testimony, rather than a truncated portion favorable to respondent, and the court's ruling, contrary to respondent's contention, did not deprive him of the Sixth Amendment rights to compulsory process and cross-examination. That Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system, and cannot be invoked as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth. Pp. 422 U. S. 240-241.

501 F.2d 146, reversed.



and
In addressing an application for preclusion of a witness belatedly disclosed after the close of discovery, a court should consider the following factors: (1) the party's explanation for the failure to comply with the discovery order; (2) the importance of the testimony of the precluded witness or of the precluded evidence; (3) the prejudice suffered by the opposing party as a result of having to prepare to meet the new testimony [or evidence]; and (4) the possibility of a continuance (see Reilly v. Natwest Markets Group Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 269 (2d Cir. 1999). A trial court may certainly insist on an explanation for a party's failure to comply with the requirement to identify his or her witnesses in advance of trial. If that explanation reveals that the omission was wilful, blatant and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimise the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely justified simply to exclude the witness' testimony (see United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975).

Siku mtakapojua kibatala ni kama haj manara ndo mtakuwa na akili