By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

judgment for the plaintiff against each defendant for 50 per cent. (instead of two-thirds)of the plaintiff’s claim and by ordering contribution between the defendants on a fiftyfiftybasis.Appeal of each defendant allowed on the limited issue of apportionment Plaintiff to havejudgment against each defendant for 50 per cent of his claim the contribution to be on afifty-fifty basis. Leave to all parties to appeal.Solicitors:Joynson- Hicks; Barlow Lyde & Gilbert: Underwood & Co.Application for judicial review.The applicants, Datafin Plc, and Prudential Bache Securities Inc.. applied forleave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Panel on Take-overs and Mergerson 24 November 1986 under the City Code on Take overs and Mergers with the effectthat an offer by the first interveners, Norton Opax Plx ., for the issued ordinary sharecapital of McCorquodale Plc become unconditional. The second interveners were SamuelMontagu & Co.Ltd .,merchant bankers and financial advisers to Norton Opax. The reliefsought included (1) an order of certiorari to quash the panels decision and/or a declarationthat decision was wrong in law; (2) an order of mandamus requiring the panel toreconsider and take a proper decision in accordance with the City code; (3) an injunctionto restrain Norton Opax whether by itself its officers, employees agents or otherwise from(a) acquiring shares in McCorquodale pursuant to Norton Opax offer dated 7 November1986,or (b) registering any further shares in McCorquodale in the name of Norton Opaxor any nominee of Norton Opax pending the final determination of these proceeding; (4)costs and further or other relief. The grounds on which relief was sought were inter alia,that rule 6.2 of the city Code on Take-overs and mergers had been infringed in the courseof Norton Opax’s take-overs bid and the panel’s decision to the contrary was erroneous:that decisions of the panel were susceptible to judicial review; and that the applicants, ascompeting bidders for McCorquodable had a sufficient interest to make the application.On 25 November 1986, Hodgson J. refused the applicants leave to make thatapplication and on the same day the applicants renewed the application before the Courtof Appeal. The court granted leave in order to hear the substantive application itself andto consider more fully the question of jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the hearing, thecourt dismissed the substantive application but reserved both its reasons and its decisionon the question of jurisdiction.The facts are stated in the judgment of Sir John Donaldson M.R.Jeremy Level Q .C and Derrick Turriff for the applicants. Introduction;there are threepossible situations in which a person affected by a decision may wish to challenge it; (a)a public duty is owed by the decision-maker, which the person affected may invoke andobtainjudicial review under R.S.C., Ord.53 (b) a private duty is owed by the decisionmaker,whichthe person affected can invoke to obtain the normal remedies of private law,including a declaratory judgment; (c) no duty is owed by the decision maker which theperson affected can invoke.142