By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

mandamus should be made but it must be directed to the minister himselfand not the commissioner. I am, of course aware that by Govt. Notice No.283 of 1971 the minister has in terms of s.44 of the Act, delegated thefunction imposed and the powers conferred u[on him to hear and decidereferences to the commissioner. It is my view that delegation does notmake it legally impossible for this court to make an order of mandamusdirecting the minister to determine the applicant company’s reference. Thelaw is that delegation does not imply a parting with powers by the personwho grants the delegation see Huth v Clarke (1890) 25 Q.B.D 391Gordon, Dadds & co. v Morris and others [1945] 1 All E.R. 616 andmanton v Brighton Corporation [1951] 2 All E.R 101 In Huth’s case supraLODR COLERIDGE C.J said at pp.394 – 395But delegation does not imply a denudation of power and authority theword delegation implies that powers are committed to another person orbody which are as a rule always subject to resumption by the powersdelegating and many examples of this might be given. Unless therefore. Itis controlled y statute the3 delegating power can at any time resume itsauthority. And at the latter page WILLS J said among other thingsDelegation as the word is generally used does not imply a parting withpowers by the person who grants the delegation. But points rather to theconferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person wouldhave to do himself. The best illustration of the sue of the would is affordedby the maxim Delegates non protest delegate as to the meaning of which405