By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the penalty demands notwithstanding the silence of the regulations on thepoint, that the student should not be condormed unheard. Statutory domesticor administrative tribunals would dwell to remember, when discharging theirnot unimportant functions, the focus words of MEGARRY, J., in John v Reesand Others (1969) 2 All E.R. 274, at p. 309:“It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which thecourts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. “ Whensomething is obvious”, they may say, “why force everybody to go through thetiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunityto be heard? The result is obvious from the start.” Those who take this viewdo not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to dowith the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of openand shut case which, some how, were not: of unanswerable charges which,in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which wasfully explained; of fixied and unalterable determinations that, by discussion,suffered a change. Noy are those with any knowledge of human nature whopause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentmentof those who find that a decision against then has been made without theirbeing afforded are opportunity to influence the corse of events”.I on tort in no doubt that in the present case the Board was bound to couplywith the principles of natural justice laid down by SIR KENNETH O’CONNOR,P., in Do sounce’s case suprg. Especially the second, third and fifth609