We propose that we deal with the decisions of each public authority at a time in the sequence of events as they unfolded, and not necessarily in the order the respondents appear. We note that there are three public authorities whose decisions are being challenged.
Should that be the case, we would be compelled not to deal with them. We find it necessary to mention this as it may so happen that matters complained of in the present proceedings may as well be addressed in those other proceedings.
We must state, at this juncture, that we take cognizance and judicial notice of other proceedings in which the applicant is challenging his alleged constructive resignation as Vice President and also proceedings in which he was pursuing the issue of bail. In the application before us, to avoid reviewing what the law forbids us to so review, we should really be looking for proceedings and/or decisions, conducted or made by inferior courts or tribunals or by persons or bodies performing public duties or functions, and only when we find such should we check whether the decision-making process in them calls for the proposed review.Īs can be seen there are thirteen proceedings or decisions the applicant is complaining about and seeking relief in respect of by way of judicial review. in Chief Constable of North Wales Police vs Evans (1982) I WLR 1155 at 1160, judicial review is concerned with reviewing, not the merits of the decision the application relates to, but rather the decision – making process. (See Practice note 53/1-14/1 under order 53 rules 1 to 14 of the Rules of Supreme Court).
Judicial review, as currently understood and accepted, is a procedure for the exercise by the High Court of its supervisory jurisdiction over the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts, tribunals, or other persons or bodies which perform public duties or functions.
0 kommentar(er)
