By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

most of their intended meaning. Repeated enactment of no certiorari clauses in commonfrom was taken as proof that Parliament was content with the established interpretation.But the Anismic case at last produce a reaction. The Government first obtained anamendment in the Foreign Compensation Bill 1969, which happened to be beforeParliament, providing for empowering the commission to interpret its orders in counciland making such interpretation unquestionable in courts of law. Whether or not thiswould have been more effective that the original ouster clause, it would have brought theconstitutional conflict into the open. But it was criticized both in and out of Parliament asinconsistent with the legal system and the rule of law. Lord Dilhorne successfully movedand amendment to allow a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal but no further.Ultimately this solution was accepted by the Government and was embodied in a longand detailed clause. Basically this provides for appeal to the Court of Appeal, but not tothe House of Lords, on any question of the Commission’s jurisdiction or of theirinterpretation of the Orders in Council. But it is not to effect any rights of any person tobring proceedings questioning any determination of the commission on the ground that itis contrary to natural justice, with theses exception no determination of the commission isto be called in question in any court of law.This is probably the fist occasion on which the implications of ouster clauses have causedpublic controversy. It is therefore very satisfactory for all upholders of the truths statedby Farwell L.J. that, after reconsideration, the door to the courts of law has been left moreopen that shut. It is impossible here to discuss technical aspects of the amendment, whichwas made while this article was in the press, but at least the first statutory mention ofnatural justice is noteworthy.Unqualified ouster clauses are now, it may be hoped, unlikely to be used again. Section11 of the Tribunals and inquires Act 1958 restored the control of the High Court bycertiorari and mandamus (though, strangely, not by declaratory judgment) in all caseswhere earlier statutes had excluded challenged in the courts, with four exceptions: (1) theBritish Nationality Act 1948, s 26; (2) any order or determination of a court of law; (8)the foreign compensation commission; and (4) cases where the act allows application to66