By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Accordingly one approaches this case on the basis, and I confess for my partan alarming basis, that the word of the Minister is outweighing the law of theland. However, having said that, one moves on to the far more difficult questionwhether mandamus will lie. It is sometimes said as a general proposition thatmandamus will not lie against the Crown or an officer or servant of the Crown. Ithink we all know in this day and age. That of which the most recent is Padfield vMinister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968) 1 All ER 694, (1968) AC 997.in which a mandamus was issued to a minister. Indeed that has always been thecase, as can be seen since as long ago as 1850 in R v Woods, Forests, LandRevenues, Works and Buildings Corars, ex parte Budge (1850) 15 QB 761 at768, 117 ER 646 at 649 Sir Frederick Thesiger expressed the proposition inargument in this form: Whenever a person, whether filling an office under theCrown or not, has a statutory duty towards another person, a mandamus will lieto compel him to perform it. “Those words of Sir Prederick Thesiger were in factadopted by Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ. There are of course, cases in which ithas been held that a serant or officer of the Cown may have as his only duty aduty towards the Crown. That, indeed, was the deciding factor in R v Treasurylords Cons (1872) LR 7 QB 3787’ but equally there are other case of R v IncomeTax Special Purpose Coms (1888) 21 QBD 313, (1886 – 90) All ER Rep 1139,which show quite clearly that where by statute an officer or servant of the Crownhas also a duty towards a member of the public then provided that member of thepublic has 2 sufficient interest, mandamus will lie.584