10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

acting in the course as their duties could be impleaded for contempt of court. Theapplicant a ppealed”.The Court of Appeal, by a majority, allowed the appeal; holding that Brown J. hadmistakenly interpreted the law. The original order by Garland J. should not havebeen made as injunctions would not be issued against the Crown. The Courtwent on to hold, however, that as the order was binding until set aside, failure tocomply with it constituted a contempt. It also held that while the Crown andGovernments Departments are not subject to the contempt jurisdiction of theHigh Court because they are non-persons, Mr. Baker, the <strong>Home</strong> Secretary, waspersonally guilty of contempt. The house of Lords had to decide two issues ofconstitutional import, namely:-1. could an injunction be issued against a government minister, and2. could a government minister or department be found to be in contempt ofcourt for failure to comply with an of court?The house answered both issues in the affinitive. Their Lordship founded theirdecision on two ground; firstly, on the wording of s. 31 of the Supreme court Act,1981, which essentially, contains provisions regarding (i) the procedure forapplying for prerogative orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari, (ii) thepowers of the High Court applications and (iii) non-prerogative reliefswhich may be so granted in an application for prerogative order(3) on the undesirability of the English law byto wide as toembro proceedings in which as in the instant application, a temporary662

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!