By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

to come before the House of Lord’s the House and the lower courts alike had overlookedthe principle’s existence, its nature and its justification are the first subject which requiresdiscussion.Ouster clauses: versus LegislatureThe starting point in abnormally clear: there is no doubt, for once, about the intention ofthe legislature. “The determination by the Commission of any application made to themunder this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law”. Reinforcing this,section 11(8) of the Tribunals and Inquiries 1958 expressly excepts determination of theforeign compensation. Commission from the operation of section 11, which gibes partialeffect to the recommendation of the Franks Commons that the commissions wasconcerned mainly with making distributions and that since it needed to know “how muchof the cake was left for distribution to claimants,. Would be very difficult for the moneyover to be distributed in reasonable time if the whole exercise could be held up bysubstantial claims being taken the High Court clearly therefore the object was to preventall litigation over the commissions awards.This has been repeatedly confirmed by ministerial spoken in the debates on the foreigncompensation bill 1969 under the order in council Anismanic Ltd claim was in factregistrable as of and right and not excreta, but that had no bearing on the intentionof the legislationFor three centuries, however, the courts have been refusing to enforce statutes whichattempt to give public authorities uncontrollable power. If a ministry or tribunal can bemade a law unto place in a constitution founded on the rule of law. It is curious thatParliament shows no consciousness of this principle. But the judges, acutely conscious ofit, have succeeded in preventing parliament from violating constitutional fundamentals.In effect they have established a kind of entrenched provision which the legislature,whatever it says, Is compelled to respect. The essence of this provision is that noexecutive body or tribunal should be allowed to be the final judge of the extent to its ownpowers. But while entrenching this principle for sound constitutional reasons, the judgeshave naturally disclaimed any intention of rebelling against the legislature. They have61