By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

53. The position is accurately set out in note 53/1-14/24 to the Supreme CourtPractice I 1993 where it is stated that:“Where the case is so urgent as to justify it,(the judge) could grant an interlocutoryinjunction or other interiom relief pending thehearing of the application for leave to move for judicialreview.But if the judgehas confused leave to move for judicial review he isfunctusofficial and has no jurisdictionto grant from of interim relief. Theapplication for an interlocutory injunction orother interim relief –could, however, be renewedbefore the Court of Appeal along with the removal ofthe application for leave to move for judicial review.”If I may repeat what I ventured to say in my earlier ruling, there is no room fordoubt that this court has the power to grant an interlocutory injunction beforehearing an application for leave to apply for a prerogative order.For the reasons I have given, I am satisfied that the law, justice and commonsense dictate that I uphold Mr. Mkono’s contention that s. 11 of the GovernmentProceedings Act does not stand in the applicant’s path in the instant application.Ex pt. To autocrats, it must be intolerable that, in a demarcating society like ours,courts should be impotent to grant a temporary injunction in favour of anindividual who complain of unwarranted or oppressive use of statutory powers bya government minister or official. It should be made perfectly clear, I think thatthis court can halt the bulldozer of the State before it quashes the right of anindividual, company or society.The preliminary point fails.B. A. SAMATTAJAJI KIONGOZIDelivered this 7th day of March, 1995, in the presence of Mr, Mkono, Counsel forthe applicant, and Mr. Salula, Counsel for the respondents.668