By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

prerogative proceedings against officers of the Crown supports such aconclusion. So fa as interim relief is concerned, which is the practical changewhich has been made, there is no justification for adopting a different approachot officers of the Crown from that adopted in relation to other respondents in theabsence of clear language such as that contained in s 21(2) of the 1947 Act. Thefact that in any event a stay could be granted against the Crown under Ord 53, r3 (10) emphasizes the limits of the change in the situation which is involved. Itwould be most regrettable if an approach which is inconsistent with that whichexists in Community law should be allowed to persist if this is not strictlynecessary. The restriction provided for in s 21(2) of the 1947 Acr does, however,remain in relation to civil proceedings.The fact that, in my view, the court should be regarded as having jurisdiction togrant interim and final injunctions against officers of the Crown does not meanthat that jurisdiction should be exercised except in the most limitedcircumstances. In the majority of situations, so far as final relief concerneddeclaration will continue to be the appropriate remedy on an application forjudicial review involving officers of the Crown. As has been the position in thepast, the Crown can be relied upon to co-operate fully with such declarations. Toavoid having to grant interim injunctions against officers of the Crown, I can seeadvantages in the courts being able to grant interim declarations. However, it isobviously not desirable to deal with this topic, if it is not necessary to do so, untilthe views of the Law Commission are known.596