CASE ONE In Tsatsu Tsiicate v Chief Justice & Attorney-General. the plaintiff brought an action against the Chief Justice 8:: Attomey-General. the plaintiff brought an action against the ChlefJustioe and . the Attorney-General under articles 2(1) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, for a declaration, inter alia. that the Practice Direction (Practice in the Empanelling of Justices of the Supreme Court) issued on 10 January 2001 by the Acting chief Justice, was in conict with articles 125(4) and 128(2) of the 1992 constitution and therefore null and void. The plaintiff raised a preliminary object on the ground that it wagggainst the rule of natural justice and the principle of memo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own case) for the Chief Justice, being a party to the action, to empanel the court which was to hear the action. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the preliminary objection on the grounds that: i) The allegation of bias, in the circumstances of the case, could not disable the chief Justice from performing his functions under article 144 (6) of the 1992 constitution ii) The Chief Justice had the prerogative of empanelling the Supreme Court and was thus vested, under article 128(2) of the 1992 Constitution, with the discretionary power to administratively empanel all r the available Justice of the Supreme Court to sit on a case iii) The chief Justice had the discretion under article 133(2) of the 1992 Constitution to empanel justices of uneven number but not less than seven to sit on a review application brought before the Supreme Court. QUESTION 1 In not more than half a page explain and describe the activity of the Judiciary the Plaintiff complained about. zomsirks