By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the law officers on behalf of the minister that, in so far as lie proceedings werebrought against the minister in his official capacity, there was no jurisdiction togrant an injunction against a minister and in so far as the proceedings werebrough against the minister in his personal capacity he could not and did notpurport to lay the scheme in his personal capacity. It was also submitted that theminister woed no duty to the plaintiff and that, if he acted in a personal capacityhe acted as a member of Parliament, which involved parliamentary privilege. Nosurprisingly Upjohn I acced to the application. Even today in an application forjudicial neview it could be difficult to persuade a court to intervene on similarfacts to those in the Mericsk case, though in view of the decision in R v HMTreasury exp smeadly (1985) 1 All ER 589, (1985) QB 657 I do not go so far asto say it would be impossible to do so. However, the Merrricks case vas brouthtby what today can be described as pricate law proceedings and the plainfiff, mostcertainly in those proceedings was not entitled to seek any and in particularinjunctive relief,. He was seeking to enforce any legal or equitable eight to whichhe was entitled. He would as the law had so far developed lack the necessarystanding to bring the proceedings. However, Upjohn I came to the consluion thatthe minister from start to fish .. was acting in his capacity as an officerrepresenting the Crown and went on to say that as this was the position it wasconceded that no injunction could be obtained aaainst him and therefore themotion failed in limine (see (1955) 2 All ER 453 at 456, (19955) Ch 567 at 575).He added that be could no see how there could be the three categories ofsituation for which the plainfiff argued, the first being when the minister was578