10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

court (1992) 1 QB 270) delivered on 29 November 1991 allowing the appealof the applicant. M. from the decision of Simon Brown 1 (1992) 4 All ER 97)delivered on 26 July 1991 dismissing M’s Motion dated 14 May 1991 tocommit, inter alios, the <strong>Home</strong> Office and the Secretary of State for contemptof court in (1) causing.Jurisdiction over the Crown or a government department or officer of the actingas such in respect of contempt of court since orders made against Crown andundertaking given on behalf of the crown were not enforceable against the Crownby any process of compulsion. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the<strong>Home</strong> office could not be held guilty of contempt because the Crown as an entityand government departments were not subject to the contempt jurisdiction of thecourts, but ministers of the Crown and civil servants were subject to thejurisdiction and the Secretary of State was guilty of serious comtempt inwithholding action toreturn the applicant from Zaire. The Secretary of Stateappealed.Held – Having regard to the unqualified language of s 31 of the supreme CourtAct 1981 the court had jurisdiction under s 31 to make coercive orders, such asinjunctions, in judicial review proceedings against ministers of the Crown actingin their official capacity and under RSC Ord 53, r 3 (10)b the court could grantinterim injunctions against ministers. Purthemore, if a minister acted in disregardof an injuction made against him in his official capacity the court had jurisdictionto make a finding of contempt would demonstrate that a government department536

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!