It cannot provide the reason why all matters of law should have an interpretation provided by the ordinary courts.

The implicit assumption as to why this should be so is that questions of law are for the ordinary courts.

Impeachment was originally used to try those who were too powerful to come before the ordinary courts.

The case was then bound over to ordinary criminal court.

The court was initially intended to bring prominent and powerful people to justice, where ordinary courts could not.

Its decision has no legal power but it can recommend the transfer of a case to an ordinary court.

Besides the ordinary court, Pain also heard cases relating to the forest law in those counties.

If it is then the ordinary court can carry on hearing the case.

Why ever should an ordinary court not decide on compensation in cases of doubt?

No one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary court.