By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

appears to have done, to hold that the word “relief” there includes injunction. Ican see no warrant for doing so. On the contrary. I am profoundly convinced thatboth the law and common sense force one to the view that the use of thosewords was, as I have already, I hope, sufficiently demonstrated, intended to limitthe scope of the meaning of the word “relief” in the subsection it is my duty toattach due with to the words which Parliament, in its wisdom has chosen to use.If, in my opinion, Mr. Mallaba’s argument on the effect of the subsection wereright, personally freedoms and rights would have been placed in great jeopardyas there would be inadequate judicial protection against unlawful conduct on thepart of those who are entrusted with the power of governing this country ordeterming, non-judicially, the rights of individuals. If that situation were to exist,the rule of law in the country would greatly suffer, with the result that members ofpuboic would be tempted to regard the law as being a series of hazardsseparating the litigant from justice. The courts must do everything possible underthe law to prevent that wrong impression of the law being formed. The law shouldbe there to promote and nect impeda justice. In this country, a decision or orderof a government minister or official, regardless of his or her rank, cannotoutweigh the law. To borrow the language of Lord Woolf in his speech in H’SCase supra (at p. 445 II):Cream stances can occur where it is the interest both of a person the is subjectto the powers of government and of the government itself that the courts should665