Being
an adviser to the first respondent, the second respondent appears to
have misled his principal by concealing and deliberately not
disclosing to him the Investigating Committee's report.
That
kind of conduct cannot be tolerated by these courts.
By
consciously ignoring sound advice, thereby deliberately straying into
the wilderness of costly illegality, the second respondent cannot cry
foul when ...
Being
an adviser to the first respondent, the second respondent appears to
have misled his principal by concealing and deliberately not
disclosing to him the Investigating Committee's report.
That
kind of conduct cannot be tolerated by these courts.
By
consciously ignoring sound advice, thereby deliberately straying into
the wilderness of costly illegality, the second respondent cannot cry
foul when he is personally visited with adverse costs.
Granted,
the second respondent was acting in the course of duty as a civil
servant, but, while going about his duties, he was not entitled to
act unlawfully thereby trampling on other people's rights.
A
civil servant, or any other employee for that matter, who acts
unlawfully in the course of duty attracts personal liability for the
simple reason that he is not employed to discharge his duties
contrary to law.
