Injunctions can be obtained at any time, even in the middle of the night. Ask your immigration lawyers who deal with deportation issues or banking lawyers who deal will international money transfers. In some of these cases even a second matters. In the UK, an injunction was obtained to prevent a deportation at 4AM in the middle of the night, 7 minutes before a suspected terrorist was about to be flown out of a UK air base on a deportation order.
It is all a charade. Courts always have judges on duty at night. Injunction applications are often even made by phone, not personal appearance in court. Lukwago has to prepare himself for a political rather than legal battle because these people are not interested in the law.
I have not read the KCCA Act, but I think the problem here is really whether the Minister has the power to call a meeting of the KCCA and to chair it. It would be very odd to make such a provision. Ordinarily it is the Mayor or the Secretary who should call meetings, after having agreed the agenda with the Executive Director. If the Mayor for whatever reason, wilfully or unwillfully, cannot call a meeting, then I am sure there are emergency provisions in the Act that would allow the members themselves to call the meeting and elect one amongst themselves to chair it. The Executive Director herself cannot call a meeting of the Council since the Council technically is her employer- her job is to report to the Council.
As for the validity of service of injunctive order, it seems this is satisfied if the relevant official was served or notified of the order before the vote on impeachment was taken. Obviously in this case, it seems clear the government prevented notice of the injunctive order from being served. Reading briefly through the proceedings, it seems clear that a councillor called into question the validity of the meeting, on a point of order, but she was over-ruled. If the point of order was because she had knowledge or copy of the injunctive order and was not allowed to present it to the meeting, this defect would render the impeachment motion and decision a nullity.
Secondly, one could also argue that, disruptive as he was, a second councillor who climbed on to the table and tried to serve notice of the order on the the minister, would have been within his rights to do so, desperate as he was to prevent the council from proceeding with an illegal meeting.
Service of notices of injunctive orders are normally made by either court appointed officials or by legal representatives of the parties. In certain cases in law, it has been decided by courts that merely bringing the attention of a party to be served that an order exists, for eg by throwing it at him, amounts to a valid legal service.
However, you should note here that an injunction would have brought very little relief to Mr Lukwago as it would have been temporary and very limited in scope. I believe it would have set a date for the parties to argue the issue of the legality of the impeachment meeting. Lukwago may well appeal, but I think court will most likely rule that, although there was an existing injunctive order in place at the time the impeachment motion was passed, no significant harm or damage was caused. It will then restore the status quo ante by either nullifying the impeachment decision and restoring Lukwago to post, or setting a firm date for for a full hearing of the substantive motion, with the Mayor’s post remaining vacant.
In other words, what I am arguing here is that Mr Lukwago can only survive on legal niceties and procedures for a short while, because the present Council of the KCCA as constituted has already sealed his fate and the law is not going to be his saviour here, unfortunately. Even if the courts declare his removal unlawful, there is no doubt in my mind that this biased or compromised council will find yet another excuse to impeach him.