By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the Crown. (In this summary 1 put on one side the position with regard to a claimfor immunity on the basis of act of state. This is not relevant for presentpurposes.).The difficult which a plainfiff might have in identifying the appropriate servant ofthe Crown who was the tortfeasor in practice was overcome by the Crownnominating the individual responsible for the damage and the lack of resourcesof the defendant did not cause problems since the Treasury would make anextranet payment of compensation if it was a case where, but for Crownimmunity, the Crown would be vicariously liable. In such proceedings, if it wasappropriate for an injunction to be granted, there was no reason why this shouldnot be dose.Respect of any trespass committed or threatened (at 82). Inidentifying the nature of the action, he did not confine himself merely to looking atthe title he examined the substance of the claim as it was disclosed in thepleadingsThe authorities on which the plaintiffs relled in raleigh v Goschen for seeking aninjunction against the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty included ells v EarlGrey *1933) 6 Sim 214, 58 ER 574. The reasoning of Shadwel V-C for grantingthe relief claimed in that case is not entirely satisfactory. However, the argumentof counsel expressed the position correctly when he conduced his submission insupport of the bill which included a claim for an order restraining the lonsls of theTreasury from making certain payments in their official capacity, by saying of thelords of the Treasury that they –569