10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

question I have posed and speaking through chinnappa Reddy, J., said at p.766:“In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary ruledependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justicehad been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudiceto any man and proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comesfrom a person who has denied justice that the person who has been deniedjustice is not prejudiced.”In De Souza’s case supra, Sir KENNETH O’CONNOR P., cited with approvalthe following passage from the judgment of LORD WRIGHT in GeneralMedical Council v Sparkman (1943) A.C 627 at p. 644:“ If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it isindeed immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at inthe absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. Thatdecision must be declared to be no decision.”In the application now before no I have hold that Board arred in not complyingwith the principles of natural justice when it dealt with the applicants cases.Applying the principle stated in the two passages I have just quoted, I am ofopinion that the fact – it be a fact – that the board would have made the samedecision if it had not violated the principles of natural justice cannot cure thenullity of their impugned decision.611

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!