By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

3. that the reference was in any event incompetent and misconceived on theground that the applicants had already received their terminalemolumentsFour ground have been urged for this application The first is that the Board failedto follow the principles of natural justice. The second is that the Board exceededits jurisdiction and failed to act judicially. The third is that the decision of theBoard was unreasonable and manifestly unjust. And the last ground is that thedecision of the Board displays manifest errors of law on its face. Some of thesegrounds are certainly interrelated and intertwined.Mr. Shivji; counsel for the applicants appeared before this court to amplify onthose grounds He opened his address by observing that the Board was a quasijudicialbody and, therefore that its proceedings were subject to judicial review bycertiorari but counsel for the first respondent (the Tanzania Harbours Authority)Mr. Adubakar. Contended rather tepidly to the contrary he sought to impeach thecompetence of the application by arguing that it is premature on the ground thatthe applets have not exhausted their right of further reference to the minister asprovided for by the statute. To that Mr. Shivji was quick to reply that theapplicants are not seeking to challenge the decision on merit but on the basisthat the decision was a millity at law. In this opinion there is no decision at all totake o the ministers.It is beyond question that the discharge by a Board of its functions under theprovision of the security of Employment Act, 1964 as amended by Act No.1 of1975 constitutes an activity of a quasi-judicial character and it follows that theprocess of certiorari applies to its acts if a case is made out. As counsel for theAuthority undoubtedly knows the writ of certiorari has its history in England. It isa writ directed to an inferior court of record commanding it to certify to the Kingor Queen in the High Court of Justice some matter of judicial character. It istherefore used to remove civil causes indictments from any inferior court of327