By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

set aside the order though his decision to do so was inevitable having regard tothe state of the authorities at that time.The effect of the advice received by Mr BakerHaving come to the conclusion that Garland J’s order was properly made, thenext question which has to be considered is the effect of the advice which wasunderstandably given to Mr Baker that the order was made without jurisdiction.Here there are two important considerations. The first is that the order was madeby the High Court and therefore has to be treated as a perfectly valid order andone which has to be obeyed until it is set aside: see the speeches of Lord Diplockin Re Racal Communications Ltd (1980) 2 All ER 634 at 634 at 639-640, (1981)AC 374 at 384 and Isaacs v Robertson (1984) 3 All ER 140 at 143, (1985) AC 97at 102.The second consideration is that it is undesirable to talk in the terms of technicalcontempt. The courts only make a finding of contempt if there is conduct by theperson or body concerned wich can, with justification, be categorized ascontempt. If, therefore, there is a situation in which the view is properly taken(and usually this will only be possible when the action is taken in accordanceeith legal advice) that it is reasonable to defer complying with an order of thecourt until application is made to the court for further guidance then it will not becontempt to defer complying with the order until an application has been made tothe court to discharge the order. However, this course can only be justified if theapplication is made at the first practicable opportunity and in the meantime598