By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

his decision is a sufficient exclusion of the court’s surveillance see padfield v minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] A.C. 997I have sufficiently demonstrated. I hope why I am of the opinion that thecommissioner failure to give reasons for his impugned decision is aserious irregularity which makes that decision a nullity in law. An order forcertiorari, like other prerogative orders is a discretionary remedy. In myconsideredbeing exercised in favourt of the applicant company. Mr.Mwidunda submitted that certiorari cannot be used as an appeal. I agreeBut is a rule of common law that where a determination by a tribunal hasbeen quashed by certiorari, the court may in its concretion., refrain fromawarding a mandamus to direct the tribunal to predetermine to matter ifsatisfied that the tribunal will duly observe the law upon a rehearingnotwithstanding that the court could have effectively enforce an order ofmandamus see Halsbury’s laws of England vol..I para 125 page 135should I invoke that discretion an confine myself to quashingthecommissioner’s decision should I notwithstanding that there is not suchprayer in the application make an order of mandamus directingpredetermination of the reference?I confess that this question hasexercised y mind quite considerably but in the end I have reached a clearopinion on it. Quashing the Commissioner’sdecision and letting thematter lie there will be unsatisfactory to the applicant company as thedecision of the conciliation Board complained against will still be in force itseems to me having given the matter careful attention that an order of404