The President of the Southwest Administrative Court, Magistrate Ngu Ngwa Augustine has halted the execution of a prefectorial order issued by the Senior Divisional Officer for Fako Zang III in a matter that concerns the installation of a water management committee in three villages in Fako.

The Senior Divisional Officer for Fako, Zang III is reported to have issued a Prefectoral Order appointing members of the Wotutu- Bonadikombo water management committee; an order which did not go well down the throat of some concern villagers especially the chairman of Wotutu.

The decision is part of the ruling of Suit No SWAC/PSE/002/2014 between Wotutu Village Community represented by its Chairman, Joseph Esuka and the State of Cameroon.

The ruling No 007/RPSE/PC/2014 granting a stay of execution, ordered that “ The execution of Prefectoral order no016/2014 of 27 January/2014 by the SDO for Fako is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of a substantive suit on the matter”

The matter is reported to have come up after Barrister Martin Dikanjo Essingila filled in an application in the Administrative court praying the court for a stay of execution of the above mentioned Prefectoral order issued by the SDO for Fako.

The SDO’s orders according to the applicant is “instituting the created body as controlling authority over the applicant’s indigenous/communal water scheme pending the determination of a substantive action before the honourable court and for any further order or other orders as the court may deem apposite to make in the circumstances of the case.”

According to the submissions, the applicant states that the village has an indigenous water scheme responsible for the supply of portable water to every member of the village and that the village has extended the supply of portable water to other villages including Bonadikombo, Bussumbu and Ewongo villages.

It holds that sometimes in 2003, Bonadikombo obtained a loan from FEICOM to construct its own indigenous autonomous water catchment independent from that of Wotutu which now caters both Bonadikombo and Ewongo villages. Point 4 of the applicants statement notes that the SDO for Fako instituted a Water Management Committee to take over the management of the applicant’s communal water scheme.

This committee is said to have faced challenges since the Wotutu Village Community felt grossly misrepresented and disadvantaged by the said order It should be noted that the Wotutu Village Community had already written a pre-litigation letter to the SDO for Fako petitioning the said act. It is for this reasons that the community prayed the court to stay the execution of the Prefectoral order “that would be for the interest of justice”. Legal Department’s submission.

According to the submission from the Legal Department, for an administrative court to entertain any application, the applicant is required to fulfil certain conditions relating to the form and subject matter also referred to in French as Conditions de forme et de fond.

The legal department’s submissions the applicants fulfilled some of the conditions but “though there is proof of the filling of a pre-litigation complain before the court, it is our humble submission that the applicants filed their action before the expiration of the statutory period of three months in case of excess reject as provided for by law no 2006/022 on the organisation and functioning of Administrative Courts, especially in its article 17.

The legal department opines that the applicants had to wait for a period of three months in case the SDO is silent after reception of the complaints or two months in case the complaint was expressly rejected before filing an application in court. The Legal department went further to urge His Lordship, Ngu Ngwa Augustine to dismiss the application for being premature before the court.

The Ruling The Administrative Court judge noted that two major sentences in the legal department’s submissions are mutually contradictory. Hence the judge stated that, that the submissions of the Legal Department contending that this matter is premature was based on the mistaken belief that Section 17 of Law no 2006/002 is applicable in applications for stay of execution.

The Judge, after considering the necessity to maintain the staus quo as the contested act concerns the management of water which is an indispensible commodity to life and which is alleged that it has previously been poorly managed by the applicants and the susceptibility of the disruption of the supply of this essential commodity and equally considering that the contested act did not target public order, security or tranquillity, ordered that the execution of the Fako SDO’s Prefectoral order appointing members of the water management committee, be stayed pending hearing and determination of a substantive suit on the matter.