Wakilii

Manji v Principal Immigration Officer (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 22 of 1953)

East African Court of Appeal · [1954] EACA 153 · 1954 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for order nisi seeking writ of mandamus to compel Principal Immigration Officer to endorse certificate of permanent residence on passport
Decision
Application for mandamus dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel the Principal Immigration Officer to endorse a certificate of permanent residence where the officer exercised discretion under regulation 3(1)(c) of the Immigration (Control) Regulations 1948. Mandamus will not issue to compel exercise of a discretionary power as distinct from a ministerial duty. The applicant was required to satisfy the Principal Immigration Officer of his entitlement, which he failed to do. The officer did not take improper matters into account in refusing the endorsement. Rule discharged with costs.

Outcome

Application for mandamus dismissed

Facts

The applicant entered the Colony in June 1946 under a re-entry permit in the name of Naran Manji Mawji and obtained a passport from the Commissioner for the Government of India in that name. His original passport was issued at Bombay in the name of Popatlal Velji Jagshi. Under the Immigration (Control) Regulations 1948, a person seeking endorsement of a certificate of permanent residence must satisfy the Principal Immigration Officer under regulation 3(1). The Principal Immigration Officer was not satisfied by the applicant. On 3 December 1953, the Deputy Governor made a Deportation Order against the applicant on the ground that he had been permitted to enter the Colony in error under a re-entry permit issued in the name of Naran Manji Mawji. The applicant then applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the endorsement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Principal Immigration Officer to endorse a certificate of permanent residence on the applicant's passport.
  2. Whether the Principal Immigration Officer was satisfied by the applicant under regulation 3(1)(c) of the Immigration (Control) Regulations 1948.
  3. Whether the Principal Immigration Officer took into account improper matters in refusing to endorse the certificate.

Orders

  • Rule nisi discharged.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Mandamus — Jurisdiction — Crown Servants
When a duty has to be performed by the Crown, the Court cannot claim even in appearance to have any power to command the Crown. Parties acting as servants of the Crown and amenable to the Crown are not amenable to the Court in the exercise of its prerogative jurisdiction.
Mandamus — Statutory Obligation — Ministerial Acts
Where in the absence of any other equally appropriate remedy a statutory obligation is cast upon servants of the Crown to do some ministerial act necessary to enable a claimant to make good his claim to relief, mandamus will issue, provided that the statute imposing the obligation does create a duty towards the applicant.
Mandamus — Discretionary Powers Distinguished from Duties
If a power or discretion only, as distinct from a duty, exists, a writ of mandamus will not be issued. The Court will not compel any authority to exercise a power which is merely permissive and which does not impose an obligation.
Judicial Review — Improper Exercise of Discretion
Where a statute has been interpreted and action taken in the light of matters which ought not to have been taken into account, that is to say which the Court considers not to be proper for the guidance of the discretion entrusted to the persons concerned, the latter will be considered not to have exercised their discretion according to law and a mandamus will issue commanding them to exercise their powers under the statute in question.
Certificate of Permanent Residence — Satisfaction of Immigration Officer
An applicant for endorsement of a certificate of permanent residence is entitled to such certificate only if he satisfies the Principal Immigration Officer that he falls within the relevant regulation. Where the Principal Immigration Officer is not so satisfied, the applicant is not entitled to the endorsement.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Immigration (Control) Ordinance Cap. 51
  • Immigration (Control) Regulations 1948 regulation 3(1)(c)

Cases cited (4)

  • The Queen v The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (1872) LR 7 QB 387
  • The Queen v The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies (1881) 21 QBD 131
  • Rex v Marshland Smeeth and Fen District Commissioners [1920] 1 KB 155
  • Rex v St Pancras (Vestry) (1890) 24 QBD 371

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Manji v Principal Immigration Officer (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 22 of 1953) [1954] EACA 153 (1 January 1954)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.