By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

have been obtained in proceedings against an officer of the Crown will be to giveany relief against the Crown which could not have been obtained in proceedingsagainst the Crown prior to the Act. Applying those words literally, their effect isreasonably obvious. Whee, prior to 1947, an injunction couldbe obtainedagainst an officer of the Crown because he had personally committed orauthorized a tort, an injunction could still be granted on precisely the same basisas previously since as already explained, to grant an injunction could not affectthe Crown because of the assumption that the Crown could do no wrong. Theproceedings would, however, have to be grought against the tortfeasorpersonally in the same manner as they would have been brought prior to the1947 Act., if on the other hand, the officer was being sued in a representativecapcity, whther as an authorized government department, for example, one ofthe named Directors General or as Attorney General, no injunction could begranted because in such situation the effect would be to give relief against thecrown. The position would be the same in those situations where proceedingswould previously have been brought by petition of right or for a declaration butrcould now be brought against the authorized department.There appears to be no reason in principle why, if a state place a duly on aspecified minister or other official which creates a cause of action an actioncannot not be brought for breach of statutory duty claiming damages or for aninjunction, in the limited circumstances where injunctive relef would beappropriate, against the specified minister personally by any person entitled tothe benefit of the cause of action. If, on the other hand, the luty is placed on the576