By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

interlocutory relief orders. While I am not disagreeing with him in that regard, I have adutiful feeling, with respect to enlarge and throw more light on the source of the power.The clear answer, is to be found in the judicature and application of laws ordinance Cat.453 inter alia promulgating, and making a declaration, that the high court shall exerciseits jurisdiction……. In conformity with the substance for common law, the doctrines ofequity, statutes of general application, in force in England, on the twenty second day ofJuly, 1920. the above shows, that the high court form the time of its institution, and dateof reception has such equity powers and has jurisdiction to apply the same as arenecessary, to do right and undo the wrong. In other words, this power of equity courtinclude the power to grant interim relief, and admits of no acceptation with reference topoint of time, to which it an be made, and it is unnecessary to force unjustified fetters onthis power, which is even preserved by section 95 of the civil procedure code 1966 andrightly pleaded by the applicants.Observed persuasively, and loudly on this aspect section 151 of the India civil procedurecode, which is in parametrical with our section 95, was commented on by the Indiansupreme court, in the case of MANHAR LAL CHOPRA vs BAHADUR RAO RAJASETH HIRALAL, 1962 SC 527, 528 as hereunder follows:Section 151 itself says, that nothing in this code, shall be deemed to limit, or otherwiseaffect the inheriting power of the court, to make orders necessary, for the ends of justice.In the face of such clear statement, it is not possible to hold, that the provisions of thecode, control the inherent power by limiting it, or otherwise affecting it. The inherentpower, has not been conferred upon the Court, it is the power inherent in the court byvirtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. Further when the code itselfrecognizes the existence of the inherent power of the court, there is no question ofimplying, any powers outside the limits of the codes.Thus there being no such expression in section 94, which expressly prohibits, the issue oftemporary Injuction in circumstances, not covered by ORDER XXXIX o CPC, or byany rules made under the code the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporaryInjuction, in circumstances, which are not covered by the provisions of ORDER 34 PCP,in the court is of opinion, that interests of justice require, the issue of such interimInjuction.What flows from the generality of the issue and the above, incontestably, is in my viewthe following, and that is namely, -1- even at the risk of tautology, that the provisions ofORDER XXXVII of the procedure code 1966 only apply to private suits and not topetitioners for constitutional proceedings, -2- that the provision of the same ORDERXXXVII are not exhaustive, -3- that the provision of the same ORDER XXXVII are notconstitutive, but recognatory of the power, to grant interim relief, -4- that the high courtas a court of equity, has inherent power to issue interim relief, and taking such powers asrecognized under section 95 of the civil procedure code 1966, and as read together withsection 8(3) of the Basic right and duties enforcement Act, 1994, it has jurisdiction toissue such interim relief, as are appropriate for the purpose of enforcing, or securing theenforcement of human rights, as enshrined in section 12 – 29 of the constitution. With96