By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

A both because there would be an incongruity in the Queen commanding herselfto do an act, and also because the disobedience to a write of mandamns is to beenforced by attachment.Originally this difficultly could not be avoided by bringing the proceedings againstnamed ministers of the Crown (R v Londs Coms of the Treasury (1872) LR 7 QB387). But where a duty was imposed by statute for the benefit of the public upona particular minister, so that he was under a duty to perform that duty in hisofficial capacity, then orders of prohibition and mandamus were granted regularlyagainst the minister. The proceedings were brought against the minister in hisofficial name and, according to the title of the proceedings by the Crown. Thelittle of the proceedings would he R v minsister exp the applicant (as is still theposition today). So that unless the minister was treated as being distinct from theCrown the title of the proceedings would disclose the incongrulty’ of the Crownsuing the Crown. This did not mean that the minister was treated as acting otherthan in his official capacity and the order was made against him in his officialname. In accordance with this practice there have been numerous cases whereprerogative orders. Including orders of prohibition and mandamus. Have beenmade against ministers. This was accept by Mr Richards as being the positionprior to the introduction of judicial review and I will merely refer to one authority,R v costumes and Excise Conus exp Coioke and Stevenson (1970) 1 All ER1068 (1870) 1 WLR 450 (which was not cited in Factortanse) to illustrate theposition. Lord Parker CJ described the then situation of which he had greatexperience. He said (1970) 1 All ER 1068 at 1072, (1970) 1 WLR 450 at 455):583