By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Every assuming that the words “civil proceedings” over prerogative proceedings,I would still regard Mr. Mallab’s contention as untenable in law, because there isanother ground which compels the rejection of that argument,. The relief referredto in subsection 11(1) of the Act must. In or considered view, be a relief otherthan an injunction and specific performance. I have not the fairltest doubt that toconstrue the subsection otherwise would make the words “by way of thereinsuperfluous. It is a settled anon of statutory interpretation that a statute should beas constgrued that, if it can be prevented, no clause, phrase sentence or wordshall be superflueous, void or insignificant. See R. v Bishop of ch(1879)4 C Q BD 245 at p. 261. Unios the necessaty or entractabitlity of language in alegislation dictates, otherwise it is the duty of a court to all words contained in thelegislation. I saw characteristics subsection 11(1). In opinion , the words by wasof are not, a d. were not intended to be, insignificant in the provision. Thosewords were intended to, and de, contraed the meaning to be attached to theword. If the word (relief) were construed to include injunction the subsectionwould and very addly, indeed. How can one, I ask, speak of a relief of injunctionbeing granted by way of injunction? Neither to a lawyer not to an espert inEnglish language would that statement make any sense. I refuse to reduce thesubsection to the rank of absurdity. In my judgment, the prohibition imposed bythe subsection was not intended to and does not, extend to an application, likethe instant one in which the relief sought is injunction itself. I would be skippingthe words “by way of” in the subsection, as the learned senior state attorney664