By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

When dismissiong the action Romer I was careful no do so sithout prejudice noany claim the plaintiffs might have against any of the defendants individually, inrespect of any trespass committed or threatened (at 82). In identifying the natureof the action, he did not confine himself merely to looking at the title examinedthe substance of the claim as it was disclosed in the pleadings.The authorities on which the plaintiffs relied in Relaigh v Goschen for seeking aninjunction against the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty included Ellis v EalGrey (1833) 6 Sim 214, 58 ER 574. The reasoning of Shadwell V-C for grantingthe relief clained in that case is not entirely satisfactory. However, the argumentof counsel expressed the position correctly when he concluded his submission insupport of the bill,. Which included a claim for an order restraining the Lonls ofthe Treasury from making certain payments in the official capacity, by saying ofthe Lords of the Treasury, that they-Are not made parties to the bill as public functionaries, but as mere stakeholdersof the fund; and, in that character there can be no objection to their beingrestrained from making the payment as they have hitherto done, until the rightsof the opposing claimants have been determined (See 6 Sim 214 at 222, 58 ER574 at 577)The Vice Chancellor presumably accepted this argument since he described thelords of the Treasury as being mere ministerial conduct pipes for payment to theparties entitled and overruled the claim of demureer.567