By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

2.8 OTTU v Attorney General & Anor. Civil case No. 53 of 1994, HC at Dar-es-Salaam2.9 R v panel of Take –over and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987] Q.B.815CONSTITUIONAL AND ADMINSTRATION ASPECTS OF THEANISMANIC CASEThe decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign CompensationCommission provides a dramatic climax to five years of litigation over a matter which anAct of parliament expressly forbids to be questioned in any court of law. After prolongedquestioning before Browne J., in the Court of appeal and restored the decision of thelearned judge of first instance; who held that a determination of the Foreigncompensation commission was a nullity.This achievement demanded investigation of fundamental problems of jurisdiction and ofthe inherent powers of the courts over statutory authorities. It also demanded that theHouse of Lords previous decision on the subject should be treated, in effect, as given perincuriam. And it demanded the imparting of even more elasticity that usual to thedoctrine of ultra wires. It is bound to rank as a major contribution to the series of caseswhich have invigorated administrative law in the last few years.The Foreign Compensation Commission is a statutory tribunal constituted by the foreigncompensation Act 1950 for the purpose of adjudicating claims on funds paid by foreigngovernments to the Government of United Kingdom in compensation for theexpropriation or destruction of British property abroad.Anismic Ltd. Claimed some euro4m. for the loss of a manganese mine in the Sinaipeninsula in consequence of the Suez hostilities in 1956. under a treaty of 1959 theUnited Arab Republic paid over euro 27.5m. to the United Kingdom as compensation forthis and other specified properties, but claims had to be made good to the Foreigncompensation commission. In a provisional determination the commission rejectedAnismic Ltd’s claim on the ground that they had sold their undertaking to an agency ofthe U.A.R Government before the date of the treaty and did not therefore comply with aprovision of an order in council requiring that claimants and their successors in titleshould be British nationals at that date but as the majority of the House of Lordsultimately held, this determination was erroneous.The Commission were misled by what Lord Wilbert fore called “unfortunate telescopicdrafting” The requirement about the nationality of successor in title did not apply wherethe original owner was the claimant. Moreover, the majority held, the commission’smistake meant that it went into matters which it had no jurisdiction to consider. Thus thecase could be brought within the principle that statutes which forbid recourse to thecourts will not protect action which is ultra vires. This least principle was affirmedunanimously and had also been affirmed in the lower courts, But in the last previous case60