By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

As the Sovereign cannot authorize wrong to be done, the authority of the Crownwould afford no defense to an action brought for an illegal act committed by anofficer of the Crown.However, difficulties did exist in relation to an action against an officer or servantof the Crown in an action for a tort. The officer or servant had to be identified.There could be no vicarious liability placed personally on an officer for the acts ofother officers or servants of the Crown since the employer’ was the Crown. Onlya servant who committed or authorized the commission of the wrong could beresponsible.The position was accurately described by Rome I in raligh v Gaschen (1898) I Ch73 at 79. In that case the plaintiffs commenced an action against the LordsCommissioners of the Atmiralty with the object of establishing that they were notentitled to eater or acquire by way of compulsory purchase land belonging to theplaintiffs and in order obtain damages for trespass and an injunction to restrainany further trespass. It was held that while the plaintifss could not sue any of thedefendants as an official body they cold sue the defendants in their officialcapacity romer I decided that it was misconceived and that the action did not lie.In the cause of his judgment he said (at 79 – 80):. So, if any of the defendants ha themselves ordered or directed the allegedtrespass now complained of by the plaintiffs, and it was in consequence of such565