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...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

the individual complaining of breach of constitutional rights. Theindividual does not lose anything by this interpretation: he can use theordinary procedures to enforce his rights and these can be just asexpeditious as proceedings under section 6. Jaundoo v.D. Attorney-General of Guyana [1971] A.C 971 supports the respondent’ssubmissions. The appellant’s case argued before the Board differs fromthat presented below. There the complaints was of the act of a judicialofficer and here it is of the act of an unspecified officer of the executive indetaining the appellant asserts a right (breach of which is not a tort) whichhe did not have before the Constitution came.E. Into force. The Constitution creates no new rights as opposed to remedies:see de Freitas v. Benny [1976] A.C 239. even if the opening words ofsection 1 of the Constitution creates new right and freedoms which arenot part of the Common Law that does not detract from the arguments onsection 6 and any new rights are enforceable by the normal process.Section 3 of the Constitution provides that section 1 and 2 shall notF. Apply in relation to any law in force at the commencement of theConstitution. <strong>By</strong> section 105 existing law includes the common law.Common law deals with public policy. Judicial immunity from theconsequences of an act done in a judicial capacity is an aspect of publicpolicy. The same immunity extends to officers acting in obedience to ajudge’s order. To hold otherwise would lead to dissatisfied litigantssidestepping appellate procedure by a collateral action complaining thatG. Their fundamental right and freedoms had been infringed by an executiveofficer acting on the order of a judge. A Pandora’s box would be opened:acts consequent on an order to the High Court or of the JudicialCommittee could be challenged in the High Court. Before the StateLiability and Proceedings Act 1966 in general no action lay against a statefor wrongs committed by its servants. That ActH. Permitted proceedings in tort but in the instant case no tort is alleged, noaction lies for the act complained of and, ex hypothesis, the Attorney-8

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!