By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

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 rights ofthe opposing claimants have been detenlned (See 6 Sim 214 at 22 58 ER 574 at577).The Vice Chancellor presumably accepted this argument since he described theLords of the Treasury as being mere ministerial conduct 0pipes for payment tothe Parties entitled and overtuled the claim of demureeRaligh v goschen was applied in Hutton v Secretary of State for War (1926) 43TLR 106 by Tomlth I. It is interesting to note that in the latter case the Artorney.General’s submission, which was accepted by the judge made it clear that for thealleged breach of statutory duty the only remedy was by petition of right unlessthe existing secretary of State had acted wrongfully, and then he could he suedpersonally but not as Secretay of State.The position so far as dvil wrongs are concerned, prior to the 1947 Act, can besummarized, therefore, by saying that as long as the plaintiffs sued the actualwrongdoer or the person who ordered the wrongning he could bring an actionagainst officials personally, in particular as to torts committed by them and theywere not able to hid behind the immunity of the Crown. This was the positioneven though at the time they committed the alleged tort they were acting in theirofficial capacity. In those proceedings an injunction, including, if appropriate, aninterlcutory injunction, could be granted. The problem which existed in seeking a570