The plaintiff’s legal team in the case of Bishop David Akau Kuol of the Awerial Diocese of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan announced on Friday that they have filed an appeal in the high court challenging the recent court ruling.
Earlier this month, a Juba County court had dismissed the co-habitation case against Bishop Akau. The plaintiff’s legal team, however, has taken steps to contest this decision.
Speaking to Radio Tamazuj on Saturday, Advocate Philip Manyok Kuol, the lead plaintiff counsel representing the family of the Bishop’s estranged wife, confirmed the appeal and provided insight into the proceedings. “After the dismissal of the case by the County Court Judge of the First Grade, we appealed the decision of the County Court in the High Court, and now the High Court has accepted the appeal,” he said.
In response to the appeal, the court has issued an order suspending the lifting of immunity for the reinstatement of the Bishop. Manyok clarified, “The summons were issued to the respondent, and the stay of execution, which we have been requesting, was accepted. The Bishop, who is now the respondent, will not be reinstated until he is acquitted by the court. Otherwise, there is no way they can proceed with the execution.”
Manyok expressed his dissatisfaction with the County Court’s ruling, stating that crucial pieces of evidence were not admitted during the proceedings. “The County Court did not admit sufficient evidence presented in the case. One piece of evidence was a video released by the first wife who had been divorced. These videos contained all the statements of the first wife, detailing her relationship with the current wife, who is her relative. She discussed the various conspiracies in these videos, which should have been presented before the County Court Judge, but he did not allow this evidence. This was the basis for our appeal,” he explained.
Manyok also emphasized the significance of a DNA test as conclusive evidence in the case, which the County Court did not permit. He added, “The DNA test is one of the crucial pieces of evidence. Conducting the test would establish whether the child is indeed the Bishop’s. The County Court’s refusal to admit this evidence formed another basis for our appeal.”
Counsel Manyok underlined their primary objective in the case, saying, “Our main goal in this case is to establish responsibility. If Bishop David wants to take his wife home, we do not object, regardless of the number of wives he has. Our focus, particularly as a lawyer, is on accountability. A child brought into this world must be cared for because no woman can bear a child alone without a man.”
He continued, “If Bishop David does not want to assume responsibility, he must inform the court that the child is not his, and he should not be held responsible for the child. The court will then make a decision, potentially granting custody to the maternal parents to prevent future disputes. We want to avoid a situation where the Bishop, after retirement, could claim the child as his, creating unnecessary conflict.”
Joseph Diardit, defense counsel for Bishop Akau, responded to the appeal by expressing a lack of awareness regarding the appeal and summons. He stated, “We have not yet seen their appeal, and we have not received any summons. If they have indeed submitted an appeal, we are not aware of it. The time for submitting an appeal has also passed, as the case was decided on the 3rd of October, and 15 days have already elapsed, supposed to continue until the 18th. I cannot see any grounds for their appeal if they talk about it.”