By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

irrationality and procedural impropriety, words which if I may respectfully say so, havethe great advantage of making clear the differences between each ground.”“Judicial review has I think developed to a state to-day when without reiterating anyanalysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can convenientlyclassify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject tocontrol by judicial review.The first ground I would call illegality; the second irrationality and the third proceduralimpropriety. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basic may notin the course of time add further grounds.I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle ofproportionality which is recognized in the administrative law of several of our fellowmembers of the European Economic Community; by to dispose of the instant case thethree already well-established heads that I have mention will suffice.”Then his lordship explained that by illegality he meant that the decision-maker mustunderstand correctly the law that regulates his decision –making power and must giveeffect to it.Whether he has or not is par excellence a Justinable question to be decided in the event ofdispute, by the judged. And by irrationality he said it meant what has hitherto beensuccinctly referred to as “Wednesbury unreasonableness” (from the case Associatedprovincial Picture Housed Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation 13 )It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of acceptedmoral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind.12. (1984) A.C 374 or (1985) L.R.C (Const) 948 ( The latter citation meansCommonwealth Law Reports (Constitutional Cases) published in London by13. (1948) 1 K.B 223To the question to be decided could have arrived at it. He explained that the a decisionfalls within this category was a question that judges by their training and experienceshould be well equipped to answer or else there would be something badly wrong withour judicial system. And by procedural impropriety Lord Diplock said that it includedfailure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairnesstowards the person who will be affected by the decision; and said that it also includedfailure to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislativeinstrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred even where such failure does not involveany derail of natural justice.The formulation by Lord Diplock of the three grounds was followed later by the House ofLords in Wheeler vs. Leicester City Council14 where the decision of the City Council120