By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

statutory authority for doing so, the tribunal cannot command the inferior tribunalto conduct its own inquiry de novo and in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice, a relief which can be granted only by a court of law. It is alsoimportant to remember the salutary words of DENNING L.J. in R v MedicalAppeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore (19951) 1 All ER 796 at p. 801“..on looking against into the old books I find it very well settled that the remedyby certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clearand explicit words. The word “final” is not enough. That only means withoutappeal. It does not mean “without recourse to certiorari”. It makes the decisionfinal on the facts, but not final on the law. Notwithstanding that the decision is bya statute made “final” certiorari can still issue for excess of jurisdiction or for errorof law on the face of the record”.In my considered view, the use of the words “final and binding” in paragraph (1)of regulation 10 of the Regulations was not intended to oust, and has not ousted,the jurisdiction of this Court to grant a relief in the form of prerogative order.Although used in a different context, I respectfully venture to think that whatLORD ATKIN SAID I RAS Behari lal v The King Emperor 50 T.L.R.1 (cited in thecommentary on R v Thompson (1962) Cr. L.R. 118 at P. 119 is universally true.The statement is as much true in Tanzania as it is in India. This is what the lawLord said:603