By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

contradiction, I think, that it is an established principle of law that the actions of astatutory decidion – making body or tribunal may controlled by this Court injudicial review proceedings if there has been a defect in decision – makingprocess or if the body’s decision is so unreasonable that no such body could,properly directing itself, make it. I did not understand Mr. Shio to contest thecorresponess of this proposition. The learned Senior State Attorney’s contentionwas, as I understood it, that the only remedy available to the applicants in thismatter is appealing under paragraph (2) of regulation 10 of the NationalEducation (expulsion and Exlusion of Pupils from Schools) Regulations, 1979(hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations’.The regulation roads as follows:“10. – (1) Subject to provisions of paragraph (2), on order for the expulsion orexclusion of a pupil from a school shall be final and binding.(2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the School Committee or schoolboard may appeal to the appropriate Appeal Board.As I understand the law, the fact that a legislation provides an extra-judicialremedy by way of a domestic appeal does not per se give rise to an implicationthat the legislature’s intention was to oust the Court’s jurisdiction completely. Toput it differently, the existence of a statutory right of appeal does not take awaythe right of an aggrieved party to apply folr prerogative orders. It must not beforgotten that whereas an appellate tribunal can make a substitution of itsdecision for that of the inferior trigunal, as a general rule, unless there is a602