By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the 1981 Act should be given a restricted interpretation (1989) 2 All ER 692 at708 (1990) 2 AC 85 at 149 – 150):First a 31 (2) and Ord 53, r 1 (1) being identical terms, the subsection and theparagram must have the same meaning and the paragraph, if it purported toextend jurisdiction, would have been ultra vires. Second, if Parliament hadintened to conter on the court jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions against theCrown, it is inconceivable, in the light of the law Commissions recommendationin para 51 of its report, that this would not have been does in express termseither in the form of the proposed d 3 (2) of the Law Commissions draft Bill or byan enaclunent to sosme similar effect. There is no escape from the conclusionthat this recommendation was never intended to be implemented. Third, it isapparent from s 31 (3) that the relief to which s 31 (2) applies is final, as opposedto interlocutory, relief by s 31 (2) a declaration may be made or an injunctiongranted where an application for judicial review .. has been made ..” But by s 31(3) no application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of the HighCourt has been obtained in accordance with rules of court Under the rulesthere are two stages in the procedure: first, the grant of leave to apply for judicialreview on ex parte application under Ord 53, r 3 (10) which by its terms enablesappropriate interim relief to be granted by the court at the same time as it grantsleave to apply for judicial review. This point appeared to mea at first blush to beone of some technicality. But on relfection I am safisfied that it onclusively refutesthe views that s 31(2) was intended to provide a solution to the problem of the590