10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicialreview. The first ground I would call illegality the second irrationality and the thirdprocedural impropriety.That is not to say that further development on a case-by-case basis may not incourse of time add further founds. I have in mind particularity the possibleadoption in the future of the principle of proportionality which is recognized in theadministrative law of several of our fellow members of the European EconomicCommunity but to dispose of the instant case the tree already well establishedheads that I have mentioned will suffice<strong>By</strong> illegality as a ground or judicial review I mean that the decision maker mustunderstand correctly the law that regulated his decision making power and mustgive effect to it whether he has or not is par excellence a justifiable question to bedecided in the event of dispute by those persons the judges by whom the judicialpower of the state is exercisable<strong>By</strong> irrationality I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as wednesburyunreasonableness (Associated provincial picture Houses Ltd. V. wednesburyCorporation (1984) 1 K.B.223). it applies to a decision which is so outrageous inits defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person whohad applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at itwhether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by theirtraining and experience should be well equipped to answer or else there wouldbe something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the court’s exerciseof this role resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffeingenious explanation in Edwards v. Bairstow (1956) A.C 14 of irrationality as aground for a court’s reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred thoughunidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker Irrationality by now can standupon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked byjudicial review. I have described the third head as procedural impropriety ratherthan failure to observe basic rule of natural justice or failure to act with proceduralfairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is becausesusceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an345

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!