By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The issue is thus whether the historic supervisory jurisdiction of the Queen’scourts extends to such a body discharging such functions including some which arequasi-judicial in their nature as part of such a system. Mr. Alexander for the panel,submits that it does not.He says that this jurisdiction only extends to bodies whose id derived from legislation orthe exercise of the prerogative. Mr Level for the applicants, submits that this is toonarrow a view and that regard has to be had not only to the source of the body’s powerbut also to whether it operates as an integral part of a system which has a public lawcharacter is supported by public law in that public law sanctions are applied if its edictsare ignored and performs what might be described as public law functions.In Reg. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex parte Lain (1967) 2Q.B.864.882. lord Parker C.J. who had unrivalled experience of the prerogative remediesboth on the Beach and at the Bar said that the exact limits of the ancient remedy ofcertiorari had never been and ought not to be specifically defined. I respectfully agree andwill not attempt such an exercise. He continued at p. 882:They have varied from time to time being extended to meet changing conditions.At once time the write only went to an inferior court. Later its ambit was extended tostatutory tribunals determining a lis inter partes. Later again it extended to cases wherethere was no lis in the strict sense of the word but where immediate or subsequent rightsof a citizen were affected. The only constant limits throughout were that it wasperforming a public duty. Private or domestic tribunals have always been outside thescope of certiorari since their authority is derived solely from contract, that is from theagreement of the parties concerned …We have as it seems to me reached the position when the ambit of certiorari can be saidto cover every case in which a body of persons of a public as opposed to a purely privateor domestic character has to determine matters affecting subjects provided always that ithas a duty to act judicially. Looked at in this way the board in my judgment comes fairlyand squarely within the jurisdiction of this court. It is as Mr Bridge said, a servant of theCrown charged by the Crown, by executive instruction with the duty of distributing thebounty of the Crown. It is clearly therefore performing public duties.Diplock L.J who later was to make administrative law almost his own said, at pp 884-885:The jurisdiction of the High Court as successor of the Court of Queen’s Bench tosupervise the exercise of their jurisdiction by inferior tribunals has not in the past beendependent upon the source of the tribunals authority to decide issues submitted to itsdetermination, except where such authority is derived solely from agreement of parties tothe determination. The latter case alls within the field of private contract and thus withinthe ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court supplemented where appropriate by itsstatutory jurisdiction under the arbitrations acts.161