By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The validity of the injunction granted by Garland j.What has been said so far does not mean that Garland I was necessarily in orderin granting the injunction. The injunction was granted before he had given theapplicant leave to apply for judicial review. However, in a case of real urgency,with this was, the fact that leave had not veen granted is a mere technicality. Itwould be undesirable if, in the situation with which Garland I was faced, he hadbeen compelled to grant leave because he regarded the case as an appropriateone for an interim injunction. In the case of civil proceedings, there is recognitionof the jurisdiction of the court to grant interim injunctions now under Ord 53. Theposition is accurately set out in The Supreme court Practice 1993, para 53/1-14/24, where it is stated:Where the case is so urgent as to justify it, (the judge) could grant aninterlocutory injunction or other interim relief pending the hearing of theapplication for leave to move for judicial review. But, if the judge has refusedleave to move for judicial review he is functus officio and has no jurisdiction togrant any form of interim relief. The application for an interlocutory injunction orother interim relief could, however, be renewed before the Court of Appeal alongwith the renewal of the application for leave to move for judicial review.There having been jurisdiction for Garland I to make the order which he did, itcannot be suggested that it was inappropriate for him to have made the order.On the view of the law which I now tke, Garland I was therefore not reguired to597