1 THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW BY JUSTICE ...

question within jurisdiction or reliance by such court upon some irrelevant
matter upon which it was, as a matter of law, not entitled to rely in
determining such a question will not ordinarily involve jurisdictional error.”
This analysis by the High Court of Australia clearly provides food for thought in
relation to this grey area. My own personal extra-judicial view is that the Anisminic
logic should not apply to any court of law. A mistake of law, simpliciter, by any
court, inferior or superior, should not be regarded as taking it outside of its
jurisdiction. The remedy should be an appeal and not judicial review. For me, the
Anisminic logic makes sense only in relation to administrative bodies and officials.
IV) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE
FIRST SENSE
The High Court Rules set out in the Second Schedule to the Courts Act (Cap. 6:01) do
not appear to contain any explicit rules on judicial review. In the absence of such
explicit rules, the High Court of the Gambia has to apply the practice and procedure
of the English High Court as they existed on 18 th February 1965. This is a
consequence of section 3(1) of the Courts Act (Cap. 6:01) which provides that:
“The Supreme Court (now known as the High Court under the 1997
Constitution) shall have the jurisdiction and powers provided by the
Constitution and all the jurisdiction, powers and authorities which were vested
in or capable of being exercised by Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in
England immediately before the eighteenth day of February, 1965.”
This inherited jurisdiction is confirmed by article 133 of the 1997 Constitution which
reads as follows:
“The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all lower courts and
adjudicatory authorities in The Gambia, and, in the exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction, shall have power to issue directions, orders or writs, including
writs of habeas corpus, orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition as it
16