QUESTION 1 Administrative law is the law concerning the powers and procedures of administrative agencies, including especially the

law governing judicial review of administrative actions1.It deals with complaints respecting government actions that adversely affects an individual, thus it involves determining the legality of government action. Therefore there is a too-fold analysis; the legality of the specific law itself and the legality of the particular acts purportedly authorized by the specify law ,therefore this is unlike the constitution law which deals with who has the ability to make laws, while the administrative law deals with the governmental officials who have been empowered by these laws to act2. Administrative agency is a governmental authority other than a court and other than a legislative body, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication, rule making, investigating ,prosecuting ,negotiating, settling or informally acting3.Therefore when the president, or a governor, or a municipal governing body exercises powers of adjudication or rule making, he or it is to that extent an administrative agency. As administrative law is concerned with natural justice, in administrative law natural justice is well defined concept which comprises of two fundamental rule of fair procedure; that a man may not be a judge in his own cause; and that, a mans defense must always be fairly heard4.The rule under common law requiring impartial adjudication and fair hearings, the rule reached its high water mark in Dr.Bonhams Case, where chief justice Coke went so far as to say that the court could declare an Act of parliament void if it made a man judge in his own cause, or was otherwise against common right and reason5 Therefore natural justice involves decision makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them the right to be heard(hearing rule),not having personal interest in the outcome(the rule against bias) and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence(the no evidence rule)6. HEARING RULE It is fundamental to the principle of natural justice or fair procedure that both sides in conflict or dispute should be heard; audi alteram partemmeans hear the other side, demands that the clearance subject be told the case to be met and given the chance to reply before a Delegate makes a decision that could negatively affect the individual7. Put simply, hearing the
1 2 nd

Kenneth Culp Davis,Administrative Law and Government,2 edition,West Publishing Co. 1975,Pg6-8. LAWNOW,Administrative Law,Special Report on Administrative Law,January/February 2007 3 nd Kenneth Culp Davis,Administrative Law and Government,2 edition,West Publishing Co. 1975,Pg 7. 4 nd Marshall,Natural Justice,2 edition,1977 5 [1610],8 Co. Rep. 113b at 118a 6 nd Investigating Complaints, A manual for investigators,2 edition, NSW Ombudsman, June 2004 7 Ibide

other side of the story is critical to good decision-making, has a right to an opportunity to reply in a way that is appropriate for the circumstances for his reply to be received and considered before the decision is made, to receive all relevant information before preparing the reply. The case to be met must include a description of the possible decision, the reason for making that decision and information on which any such decision would be based. It is most important that where possible any negative information the agency has about the person affected with its action is disclosed to him/her. In Ridge Vs. Baldwin8, it was stated that "The acting Governor was not called upon to give a decision on an appeal between parties, and it is not suggested that he holds the position of a judge or that the appellant is entitled to insist on the forms used in ordinary judicial procedure," but he had "a duty of giving to any person against whom the complaint is made a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement which he may desire to bring forward and a fair opportunity to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice."

RULE AGAINST BIAS The rule against bias requires decision makers to: not have an interest in the matter being decided, and not appear to bring a biased or prejudiced mind to making the decision, a judge is disqualified from determining any case in which he may be , or may fairly be suspected to be biased. In R vs. Altrincham Justice Ex P. Pennington9, where a prosecution for selling vegetable under weight to a local authority school was heard before a magistrate who was a member of authoritys education committee, the conviction was quashed. In HM Coroner For Inner London West District Exp. Dallaglio, R v10,it was held that the use of the expressions "unhinged" and "mentally unwell" by the coroner indicated a real possibility of unconscious bias. The coroner's decision would be quashed and the matter remitted to a different coroner for a fresh decision on whether to resume the inquests, following the decision in R v GOUGH [1993]. Therefore a decision which is made without bias, and with proper consideration of the views of those who are affected with it will not only be more acceptable, it will also be of better quality, justice and efficiency go hand in hand, as long as the law does not impose excessive refinements. THE NO EVIDENCE RULE In administrative law, the fact/law distinction is readily observable in the relationship between administrative appeals and judicial review. In most systems of administrative decisionmaking, an appeal from a primary decision maker to a higher administrative official or tribunal
8 9

(Reported at [1963]2 W. L. R 935, [1964]AC 40) [1975] QB 549. 10 [1994]CA

usually means a re-hearing of the facts and evidence. On the other hand, intervention by way of judicial review means that the role of the court is confined to the correction of legal errors. Generally, insufficiency of evidence constitutes a basis for judicial review, the role of the judge is to declare the law whilst the function of the jury is to determine the facts and in the process of litigation generally, the function of higher or appellate courts is mostly confined to resolving questions of law11. Therefore, if the above three principles of natural justice will not be followed by the decision makers in the discretion of their duty, then it is actual that the means which have been used are not just and cannot be trustworthy to the people and therefore the end cannot be just to that extent. Control mechanisms under administrative law can sometime also be looked upon when one is describing the scope of administrative law, and this also can be looked upon as we are going to see down from several control mechanisms of administrative law; Easy access to justice, it is clear that people will trust and see that the means are very worth to them if there is easy access to justice, that at the time when judges, magistrates and lawyers are needed by the people their just present. Means that if the ways that are used by the decision makers to the people, if their not such expensive then there will be just. But the end cannot be just and trustworthy in circumstance where these means are very complicated, as in the case of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs vs. Teoh and Re Minister for Immigration and Multcultural Affairs; ex parte Lam12 Both Teoh and Lam concern individuals who were facing the revocation of their Australian entry visas, and consequently deportation, due to drug offences. In challenging these decisions, both Mr Teoh and Mr Lam claimed that they had been denied procedural fairness on the basis that they had a legitimate expectation that a course of conduct would be pursued by officers of the department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Both men were fathers of Australian citizens and provided testimonials to the effect that it was in the best interests of their children that they remain in Australia rather than be returned to their country of origin13. Writ jurisdiction, this is the powers that are exercised when the authorities have failed to exercise the jurisdiction though vested in it or failed to exercise the jurisdiction though vested on him or to correct the apparent errors on the face of records or there is violation of the principle of natural justice, and it is only from the superior court, for example in Tanzania is the High Court

11

Lane William,B(2007),The no evidencerule. In Groves,Matthew & Lee, H.P(Eds.),Austrarian administrative law;fundamentals,principles and doctrines. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne,Vic,Pp 233-252. 12 Lane William,B(2007),The no evidencerule. In Groves,Matthew & Lee, H.P(Eds.),Austrarian administrative law;fundamentals,principles and doctrines. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne,Vic,Pp 299-315 13 Ibid at Pp 299-315.

and the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. Justice Subbarao once in the case of Basheshwar Nath v. Commissioner, Income Tax14, stated that; A large majority of people are socially poor educationally backward and politically yet not conscious of their rights, cannot be pitted against the state or the institution or they cannot be put on equal status with the state or large organizations. The people are requires to be protected from themselves. It is therefore the duty of the court to protect their rights and interests. Fundamental rights are therefore transcendental in nature and created and enacted in national and public interest and therefore they cannot be waived. Court of law exercising ordinary jurisdiction, the superior courts have the inherent power of review of administrative actions. Judicial review of an act by an administrator is limited to determining whether delegates exercised their powers within the strict parameters as set out by the law that conferred the power and duties to act. Therefore, these courts may intervene if they conclude any of the following jurisdictional problems were involved in the impugned act, substantive ultra vires, the delegate exercised a discretion for an improper purpose, with malice or bad faith, or with reference to irrelevant considerations, the delegate failed to consider relevant matters, the delegate made serious procedural errors or the delegate made an error of law. In R. v. Lord President of the Privy Council15, it was held that since Parliament only confers power on a public authority on the basis that it is to be exercised on the correct legal basis, any misdirection in law will render the decision ultra vires. Thus, in general, all errors of law are now considered as jurisdictional and ultra vires in a broad sense of the term, and the High Court can intervene to correct them. hence the means become trustworthy by the people or not. Therefore, all in all, the prerogative powers of writ jurisdiction conferred by the constitution for judicial review of administrative action is undoubtedly discretionary and yet unbounded in its limits. The discretion however should be exercised on sound legal principles. In this respect it is important to emphasis that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which the whole constitution system is based. The end can only be just if what is done is within the principles of natural justice and rule of law.

14 15

AIR 1980 SC 1983 ex parte Page [1992]UKHL 12, [1993] A.C. 682, H.L. (UK).