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.

February 27. The judgment of the majority of their Lordships was delivered by LORDDIPLOCK.The unfortunate misunderstands that resulted in the appellant, a member of the Bar ofTrinidad and Tobago, being committed to seven the Privy Council it would be even moreludicrous if an aggrieved person could go for redress to the High Court.The Attorney-General was not a proper party to the motion: he was not involved, nor wasthe state. To depend on section 13 of the Judicature Act 1962 (No. 12 of 1962) ismisleading because there the Attorney –General is not a party but simply has the right tobe informed of the constitutional issue and in his absolute discretion to join theproceedings as amicus curiae and not as a party.Davies followings. “Redress” in section 6 (1) of the Constitution is to be interpretednarrowly and is qualified by “for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement”in section 6 (2). The High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to making orders by way ofdeclaration Injuction (where appropriate because an Injuction cannot issue against thestate) and prerogative order. There is no power to award damages. Save for powers andduties of the courts other than the High Court or Court or Court of Appeal conferred bysection 6 (3), section 6 gives no new remedy to the individual complaining of breach ofconstitutional rights. The individual does not lose anything by this interpretation: he canuse the ordinary procedures to enforce his rights and these can be just ads expeditious asprocedures to enforce his rights and these can be just as expeditious as proceedingsunder section 6. Jaundoo v. Attorney-General of Guyana [1971] A.C. 972 supports therespondent’s submissions. The appellant’s case argued before the Board differs from thatpresented below. There the complaint was of the act of a judicial officer and here it is ofthe act of an unspecified officer of the executive in detaining the appellant under an orderof a judicial officer which the executive officer could not disobey. The appellant asserts aright (breach of which is not a tort) which he did not have before the Constitution cameinto force. The Constitution creates no new rights as opposed to remedies: see de Freitasv. Benny [1976] A.C. 239. Even if the open words of the section 1 of the Constitution55

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!