By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

In the case at hand of course the applicants have vested interests in the matter, as thechange in price would affect their livelihood. It is depriving them of their propertywithout being heard. In fact any member of the public has a right to be heard on thematter as the decision adversely affects his livelihood i.e. his pocket as a potentialcustomer of the hotels concerned.49 (1864)50 (1723) Fortes Rep. 20251 (1723) E.A 297 (K)52 (1969) 1 All E.R 904 C.A. at p. 908The applicants have in fact another string to their bow. The law has advanced mustfurther on this field. It is said that a person is entitled to a fair hearing before a decisionadversely affecting his interests is made by any public official or body if he has a“legitimate expectation” of being accorded such a hearing. The phrase “legitimateexpectation” in this context originated in the judgment of Lord Denning, M.R. in SchmidtCase (Supra). Legitimate expectation may arise wither from an express promise given onbehalf of a public authority or from the existence of a regular practice, which the claimantcan reasonably expect to continue.The expectation thus may be based upon some statement of the public authority whichhas the duty of making the decision, if the authority has through its officer acted in a waythat would make it unfair or inconsistent with good administration for him to be deniedsuch an inquiry – see English cases on the point first R.vs. Board of Visitors of Hullprison ex-parte St. Germain (No.2) 53 then O Reilley vs. Mackman; 54 and C.C.S.U.vs.Minister of the Civil Service.55 In the case at hand it could be argued that there existed alegitimate expectation on the part of the applicants (assuming they had no vested interestsin the matter) that the Assistant Price Commissioner in consonance with a goodadministration would not deny them an opportunity of being heard as they had constantlypestered hem to review the prices; and he knew his decision would adversely affect theapplicants.The respondent might argue that he was merely exercising an administrative power andnot a judicial act and so he had no obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justiceor fair play. But as Lord Denning, M.R pointed out in the case of R.vs Gaming Board forGreat Britain Ex parte Benaim.56“At one time it was said that the principles (of natural justice) only apply to judicialproceeding and not to administrative proceedings. That heresy was scotched in Ridge vs.Baldwin57…. So let us sheer away from these distinctions.133