By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

e in a position to make an order which clearly sets either what should or whatshould not be done by the governments.Any collision between the freedom of the individual and the security of the State,in any sphere of national life, does not, in my considered opinion, dictate theacceptance of Mr. Mallaba’s argument. If the law were as contended by thelearned Senior State Attorney, justice would have been wearing a bandage overher as she could not bear to see some of the decisions made in her name in thatbranch of the law. I can find no reason for believing that Parliament could haveintended to create such a situation.Before parting with this application, I should, I think, say a word or two on oneimportant point. Since overruling Mr. Mallaba’s objection to this Court granting aninjunction pending the bearing of the application for leave to apply for certiorari,mandamus and prohibition on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction todose I have found a passage in the judgment of Lord Woolf in R. s case, supra,which if I may respectfully say so, plainly demonstrates that the High Court inEngland has the power to grant an interlocutory injunction pending the hearing ofan application for leave to apply for judicial review. The passage, at pp. 463 –464. reads:“What has been said so far does not mean that Garland j. was necessarily inorder in granting the injunction. The injunction was granted before he had given666