By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

against a government minister or department. Section 11 of the Act and s. 21/English legislation are, save of the for the use of the words “Crown” and“Subjects” instead of ‘Government” and “private persons” respectively, in parimaterial S. 30 of the Constitution deals with limitations upon and the enforcementand protection of basic rights and duties.It cannot be doubted that Mr. Mallaba’s preliminary point reaises an issue ofconsiderable importance on enforcement by this court of the provisions of theLaw reform (Fatal Accdients and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance(Amendment) Act, 1968, the legislation which confers on this Court the power togrant prerogative orders. While I find Mr. Mkon’s argument concerning s. 30 ofthe Constitution very interesting, I do not find it necessary, in law, to determineMr. Hallabas’s preliminary point on constitutional grounds. I thin the point can beadequately dealt with on non-constitutional grounds. It is a rule of constitutionalinterpretation that if the court can decide a case before it on non-constitutionalgrounds, that course should be preferred; see The Guide to American Law, page375. I proceed, therefore, to consider the merits or otherwise of the nonconstitutionalcontentions addressed to me did. Proceedings were then broughon behalf of a against the home office and the Home Secretary alleging contemptof court in respect of the breach of the undertaking and the ex-parte orderrequiring M’s return. Simon Brown J. dismissed this motion on the basis thatsince the Crown’s from injunction was preserved by s. 21 of the Crownproceedings Act, 1947, neither it nor its departments, ministers and officials661