INTRODUCTION

In view of the above we will therefore concentrate on judicial control by the court. Judicial control or
review is the more common, frequent, and familiar source of redress aggrieved parties, judicial control
of administrative adjudication or of administrative bodies and their powers, action and omissions
generally, is better known as judicial review. Generally, High Court and other superior court, are superior
to a tribunal, and may therefore control a tribunal, or other similar bodies by receiving their findings.
Affirming this views in the Supreme code case of ARUBO Vs AIYELERU(1993) NWLR pt 280, p 280 at 145
SC. NNAEMEKA- AGU JSC said: A tribunal of inquiry is inferior to both the High Court and the Supreme
Court which are vested by the Constitution with unlimited powers to adjudicate on the rights of parties
who appear before them and see the execution of and enforcement of their decision. Consequently,
once a party gets a final judgment in his favour before a court of competent jurisdiction such a judgment
is effective, conclusive and binding on the parties and their privies and can only be upset an appeal, and
a tribunal of enquiry not being an appellant court is incompetent to review, overrule, or set aside such
judgment".

Therefore, in exercise of its powers of review, High Court may issue an order of prohibition to shop a
tribunal from entertain a matter, or it may issued order of certiorari in order to review the decision of a
tribunal and seporite.

GROUND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. ACTING ULTRA VIRES: means beyond ones power unauthorised. It is actively beyond one's power as
compared by the enabling statute or law items of reference where a tribunal goes outside it's powers, a
court of law will review it's binding as appropriate.

2. Lack of jurisdiction by the tribunal: means the right or power to do something in the case, judicial
power by a tribunal to entertain a matter. Where a tribunal entertain a matter without having
jurisdiction, the court of law will review the tribunal findings as may be appropriate in the circumstances
and set aside the whole judgment or per of it as null and void.

3. Breach of the rules of pair hearing mandatory observance of the requirements of the fundamental
rights to fair hearing as provided in Section 36, 1999 Constitution, is a must for everybody acting
judicially or quasi- judicially. Where a tribunal fails to observe the right to fair hearing as set forth in the
Constitution, a court of law will review it's finding as may be appropriate.

4. Locus stand. A party have locus standi to apply court for judicial review otherwise, the court will not
entertain the application made to it for judicial review.

5. Right of appeal. There must be a right to appeal, from the decision of the tribunal, where party has no
right of appeal, a court of law will not be able for grant judicial review in an application made to it for
judicial review.
6. Non observance of the principles of natural justice: The observance of the rule of natural justice is a
must for anybody acting judicially or quasi-judicially. The common law rule is that any person or
statutory authority having the power to affect or determine the right of a person is bound to hear him
before exercising his powers is both fundamental and universal where a tribunal or panel fails to
observe the rules of natural justice, a court of law will set aside the tribunal judgment, or set aside the
panel finding report or recommendations.

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

What is natural Justice: are the principles of Justice and fairness which impose obligatory on persons
who have power to make decisions affecting other people to act fairly, in good faith, without bias and to
afford a person the opportunity to be heard and adequately state his case, before a decision is made.
Natural Justice is the name for divine law, and divine Justice. It is justice as God would have us dispense
it. It is a lot of universal principles of fairness and justice, arrival at by the observation of nature,
guidance from theology, rational thinking and deduction. There is no universally or general accepted
definition of natural justice. However, in a nutshell natural justice means.

The inherent right of a person to a fair and just treatment in the hand of rulers, their agent and
other person. Natural Justice means the golden rule. Also unto other what you want them to do unto
you

NATURAL JUSTICE MEANS THE FOLLOWINGS

• audi alteram partem

• Nemo judex in casau sua

• in fact natural justice means fair hearing in all its ramifications

However, for purpose of out topic of discussion we are going to deal with first two mention above.

• AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM: (HEAR THE OTHER SIDE)

Audi alteram partem is a Latin expression which means, hear the other party. It means hear the other
side, or various sides in a dispute. Before reaching a decision or judgement. It is a principle of natural
justice or fair hearing that no one should be condemned unheard. IN FOSE VS LAOYE (1989) 2 NWLR PT
106-p-265 at 681 THE Supreme Court unanimously pro...... At the serious failure of persons exercising
judicial and quasi- judicial powers to hear the other side before condemning and passing judgment, even
though as God he is omniscient and he knew all they had done. God himself who created all thing, who
has all powers and who knows everything gave Adam and Eve the opportunity to state their defence
before passing judgement. therefore the requirement that there should be natural justice and fair
hearing in every matter and determination predate society.it is as old as the creation of man. Natural
Justice or fair hearing is common sense and proper. Above all it is divine and it is required of us by God
IN FCSC VS LAOYE Eso JSC delivering the judgement of the Supreme court remark. As the reasoning of
this court in fair hearing is not only in accord with the law over the ages but agrees with common sense.
Anyways, is there a reason the other side should out be hered before condemned? Why should he not
enjoy the right conferred upon him by law Constitution and employment! Why should he not be
protected by the Constitution and have criminal charges against him determined by the courts or
tribunals set up by the Constitution itself? I think it is admitted in every reasonable culture, even a joint
from the decision of this court, that a judge should hear both side before determining the quit or
otherwise of a person.

ADIGUN VS A.G OYOSTATE (1997) 1NWLR pT 53P678

"The principle has been incorporated in our jurisprudence that a man cannot be condemned without
being heard. This is often expressed by the Latin maxim audi alteram pertem. Hear the other side, and it
is applicable in all case in which a decision is to be taken in any matter. Whether in a judicial or in a
purely administrative proceeding involving a person interest in a property, right or personal liberty."

Wilson VS A.G BENDEL STATE, NNAEMEKA - AGU JSC put it this way'

" court have a duty to protect............ Right, as otherwise law........ Will reign. So they have always a
citizen interested right must be done in strict compliance with the law and any laid down procedure.
MAYOR OF WESTMINSTER VS LONDON And NORTH WESTER RAILWAY CO.

As lord MACNAGHTEN, remark

"A public body invited with statutory power must be take care. Not to exceed or abuse its powers. It
must keep within the limit of the authority committed to it.it must act in good faith and it must act
reasonable Eperokun VS University of lagos ( 1986) 4 NWLR Pt 36, pt162 at 173

The court put this : " constitutionally.............. Provision, particularly those safeguarding individual right,
should not, have in a fascist system be lightly.......... Upon. An appointee should not have the....... Of
misconduct hanging over his head, without being given an opportunity of clearing his name"

This law of God and man both give an accused person or defendant an opportunity to fully and freely
make his defense, if he has any. God himself would not send out his creatures, ADAM and EVE from his
cherished garden of....... without first listening to ADAM And his......

KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY VS OBIORA (1939) 4 RSC 226 at 230

ADEMOLA CJP as he then was. Said

" natural justice required that an accused person must be given the opportunity to put forward his
defence fully and freely and to ask the court to hear any witness those evidence. Might held him."

ISIyAKU MOHAMMED VS KANO N. A ADEMOLA said :

"We think a fair hearing must involve a fair trial, and fair trial of a case consist of the whole hearing. We
therefore see no 1 (1986) 1NWLR pt 53, 678

2 ( 1905) Ac 426 at 430

Difference between the two. The true test of a fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who
was present at trial, whether from his observation, Justice has been done in the case.

• NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA : ( THE RULE AGAINST INTERET AND BIAS )

The Latin phrase, nemo judex in causa sua or nemo debt asse judex in propria cuase means that no one
should be a judge in a matter in which he is a party or has an interest or state. A judge should be
unbiased in the subject matter or proceeding before him. This rule of natural justice or fair hearing is
meant to prohibit interest and bias in a case. On the part of a judge whenever a judge has an interest or
stake in a matter, interest or relationship, he should.......... From hearing the matter at........ And let the
chief judge or administrative judge assign the matter to another for hearing. An interested that will
disqualify one, is probably an interest that makes one to desire...... , that the matter should go in favour
of a particular side or that would likely Occasion miscarriage of justice therefore, nemo judex in cause
sua or the rule against interest and bias. Means a judge must not be an interested party in the matter or
be in a position whereby there is substantial likelihood of bias by him in the matter or if he knows he
cannot be impartial, he should politely decline to sit in judgment over the Matter in the words of lord
HEWART IN R VS SUSSEX justice, Ex part MC CARTHY (1924) 1 kb 256 at 259

" justice should not only be done but should be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to done".

SERGEANT VS Dele ( 1876- 77) 2 Q Bd 558 at 567

LuSH j. Stated: " the law does not measure the amount of interest which a judge process if he has any
legal interest in the decision of the question one way, he is disqualified, no Matter how small the
interest may be the law in laying down this strict rule, has regard not so much perhaps to the motives
which might supposed to beas the judge as to the susceptibilities of the litigant parties one important
object, at all events, is to clear away everything which might.......... Suspicion and distrust of the tribunal
and so to promote the feeling of confidence in the administration of justice, which is so essential to
social order and security.

DIMES VS GRAND JUNCTION CANAL Co ( 1852 ) 10 per 301 at 315

Lord CONTTENHAM. The Lord chancellor of England who owned 90 shares in the canal company gave
judgment in favour of the canal company in a suit between the plaintiff appellant and the company on
appeal, the house of Lords setting aside the judgment held. That this was a breach of the rule of
natural justice. Nemo judex in cause sua in this case lord CAMPBELL said.

" no one can support that lord cottenham could, in the.........

Degree, be influenced by the interest that he had in the concern, but my lords, it is of the last
importance that the maxim no man is to be a judge in his own case is to be held sacred . and this is not
to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest"

RLACKDUW .J. R VS RAND ( 1866) LRI op at 232 rightly said :

" there is no doubt that any direct pecuniary interest however small in the subject of inquiry does
disqualified a person from acting as a judge in the matter"

CITY OF LONDON VS WOOD Holt C.J stating the rules of law said that : " is is against all laws, that the
suit person should be party and judge in the same case, for the party is he that is to complain to the
judge, and the judge is to hear the party, the party.......... to have his will, the judge determine against
the will of the party, and has authority to force him to obey............ And can any man act against his will,
or enforce himself to obey. To say that he may be judge and Perry it is manifest........... It is impossible
that one should be judge and party, for the judge is to determine between party and party or between
the government and party.

EXCEPTION TO THE NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA

1 where another Court, tribunal or adjudication cannot be constructed.

2 where a status name a particular person or body as the judge.

3 when a court punishes contempt committed in the face of court .