By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

order or direction that the alleged rrespass took place, or if any of the defendantsthreatened to order or direct further trespass, then they could be sued. But in thiscase they could be sued not because, but in despite of the fact that theyoccupied official positions or acted as officials. In other words – the plaintiffs, inrespect of the matters they are now complaining of, could sue any of thedefendants individually for trespasses committed or treatened by them, but theycould not sue the defendants officially or as an official body. The question.narrows itself down to thirst. Is the present action one against the defendantsas an official body, or is it an action against them as individuals?.Having come to the conclusion that the action was against the defendants in theirofficial capacity, romer) considered whether he should give leave to amend. Inexplaining his decision not to give leave to amend, he stated (at 81) that to havedone so would have amounted to changing one action into another of asubstantially different character. He added that this was illustrated by the factthat:An action against the defendants in their official capacity, supposing it to lie,would differ in most material respects from an action against them as individuals,as woll be seen when consideration is paid to questions of discovery, and to theform of any imertocutory injunction or final judgment that could be obtained bythe plaintiffs, and as to how and against whom such injunction or judgment couldbe enforced.566