Lecture: Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action In the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for

r the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, Lord Diplock identified three grounds for reversing an administrative decision by way of judicial review. These are (i) Illegality (ultra vires), (ii) Irrationality (Unreasonableness), and (iii) Procedural impropriety. However, in modern public law literature, judicial review can be grounded on other factors like (iv) breach of legitimate expectation; (v) errors of fact; (vi) human rights grounds, and (vii) proportionality However, the grounds tend to overlap a) Illegality Illegality is related to the lawfulness (legality) of the decision or action by a public body. The decision by a public authority, tribunal, or inferior court is regarded to be unlawful if it. Acting contrary to the statutory provisions (the decision maker is expected to be guided by the law) Non-jurisdiction, or failure of exercising jurisdiction When the decision maker exceeds jurisdiction provided by the law/statute (substantive ultra vires). Ignoring relevant considerations or taking into account irrelevant considerations. Eg. In the case of Wheeler v Leicester City Council, the City Council banned a rugby club from using its ground because three of the club's members went on a tour in South Africa at the time of apartheid. In turn, this was reviewed and the decision of the council was considered illegal due the fact that the council had taken into account irrelevant considerations. Also, in Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister refused to mount an inquiry into a certain matter because he was afraid of bad publicity. Where the powers are used for the purpose different from the one specified by the law under which they were granted (improper purpose/wrong purpose). According to Peter Layland and Gordon Anthony (2009), when the statute confers the power to a decision maker for purpose A, it will be considered unlawful if that decision maker exercises that power for purpose B (Page, 240). In R v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council, the London Education Authority used its powers to inform the public for the purpose of convincing the public of its political point of view.

 In the case of Meade v Haringey London Borough Council (1979), the council sent out an instruction during a strike by its manual workers that all schools were to be closed until the strikes were over. Up to the 4th weeks, some parents had complained. One of the parents on his behalf and the rest of the parents required the minister of education under the Education Act of 1944 to make the authority discharge its statutory duty. The minister refused and the parent brought matter forth to the court of appeal. The case was suspended, but among issues rehearsed was that; the decision of the authority was based on sympathy and had taken irrelevant considerations-also improper purpose (out of the field of education). Error of law on the face of record: this happens whereby the courts will intervene if the record of the proceedings before the decision maker contains legal mistakes on its face and without the need to resort to any other supporting evidence. the record is means the documentation which initiates the proceedings, but excludes evidence or any reasons given for the decision unless the determination itself incorporates them by reference. For example, the tribunal can initiate and give reasons, which are wrong to justify the decision. It is an error on the face of proceedings (out of the jurisdiction of the decisionmaking authority). Making a mistake of law while still acting in its jurisdiction. In R v NORTHUMBERLAND COMPENSATION APPEAS TRIBUNAL, ex parte SHAW (1952) IKB 338 the tribunal had made an error of rejecting the former employees employment as a factor that was to account while establishing the required compensation. The Queens Bench in the House of Lords by order of certiorari quashed the decision of the tribunal and the record was expunged. Fettering discretion: This refers to surrendering the decision making responsibility-instead of delegating or blindly following a public policy without exercising mind and thus neglects individual case circumstances and thus fail to decide a case on basis of its merits-E.g., the minister of education leaves heads of public schools to introduce their own fee structures. Unlawful delegation of functions/powers. Proportionality: This principle requires that a decision is proportionate to the aim that it seeks to achieve. However, in most of the legal systems, proportionality has not become a standalone ground for judicial review. b) Procedural Impropriety Procedural impropriety is a procedural ground that focuses on the decision-making procedure rather than the content of the decision itself. It

thus focuses on both procedural rules and principles of natural justice. Procedural impropriety may occur in form of Failing to adhere to established procedures (but here it works most as a species of legitimate expectation) or procedural fairness. The legitimate expectation principle requires that that if a public body has led an individual to believe that he will have a particular procedural right, over and above that generally required by the principles of fairness and natural justice, then he is said to have procedural legitimate expectations that can be protected. Take e.g. If university rules provide that if a student fails the university exams he will have the second, third chances to redo the course, this builds a legitimate expectation by the student that he/she will be protected once he/she fails the course the first and second time. Failing to adhere to the principles of natural justice (rule against bias or the rule of fair hearing, failure to give reason). Applicable Case: AMRI JUMA & OTHERS v THA & ANOTHER (1998) TLR. The applicants who were terminated by the defendant in 1980 following efficiency of the authority and procession to the state house applied for certiorari against the Labour Conciliation Board at Temeke. The parties were to attend to the conciliation on 5/4/1980, but when the defendants representatives arrived entered the boards offices and had a discussion of about 20 minutes with the board.

The high court affirming their termination issued the order of certiorari and mandamus requiring the board to hear them and determine reference in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice (both bias and the rule of fair hearing may apply).
Also: AMIR HAMZA UMAR & 3 OTHERS v MINISTER FOR LOCAL GVT, COOPERATION & MARKETING

Tenants of NHC in Bukoba, the minister allowed NHC to increase rent above statutory set amounts without giving reason. Mwalusanya, J held that under the statute and common law the minister was duty bound to give reasons for the decision to persons who would be affected. c) Irrationality (unreasonableness) Procedural irrationality: taking irrelevant considerations into account or failing to take relevant considerations into account Substantive irrationality: Also known as Wednesbury unreasonableness Applicable Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 Made out where no reasonable decision-maker could have come to that decision A very high threshold