By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

is good practice, and whether the machinery of the central government would beunduly impeded by the issue of such injunction in a particular case should be oneof the points to be considered by the court in deciding the question whether it isjust and convenient to grant the injunction.I hold that the application for interim mandatory injunction is maintainable in lawin Tanzania in cases such as the instant one.”This decision by Mapigano, J., with which I respectifely agreed amelioraters to adegree, the handicaps which have traditionally at tended prerogative remadiesand as they appear to have been originally conceived under the Law Reform(Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, (Amendment) Act,1968. The decision also significantly improves on the potion as one finds in thepassage from Prof. Wade’s book reproduced above. That, as already indicated,was the position in England then. However, there too, i.e. in England, the positionhas now been radically altered. The change was made in 1977, about ten yearsafter the year of the edition of Prof. Wade’s book I have referred to above. In theirbook, “O. Hood Philips’ Constitutional and Administrative Law”, Sweet & Maxwell,(7 th Edn) O. Hood Philips and Pacel Jackson at p. 683 explain the change andthe present position thus:-“Before the reforms of 1977 litigants who resorted to the supervisory jurisdictionof the High Court had to choose which order they wished to seek. A prerogativeorder could not be sought together with or as an alternative to other remedies504