TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. Introduction.................................................................................................................................2
1.1. Concept of Natural Justice..........................................................................................................2
1.2. Briefly History of Natural Justice................................................................................................3
2.0. Precedents on Consequences of Non-Observation of Natural Justice..........................................3
2.1. Circumstance where Failure of Natural Justice May not Affect Administration Action..............5
2.2. Doctrine of Legitimacy................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCE..........................................................................................................................................8
1.0. Introduction
Natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, is a pivotal principle in administrative law,
ensuring that decision-making processes are fair, impartial, and transparent. 1 This fundamental
concept imposes obligations on decision-makers to act fairly and ensure that the rights of
individuals are protected when making decisions that affect them. 2 In this term paper, we will
explore the essence of natural justice, study the repercussions of its non-observance through
relevant judicial precedents, and consider the exceptional circumstances under which the failure
to adhere to natural justice may not impact administrative actions. Through the lens of legal
principles and case law, we will navigate the intricacies of natural justice, outlining its critical
role in administrative processes and the nuanced exceptions that temper its application in certain
circumstances.

1.1. Concept of Natural Justice

Natural justice has meant many things to many writers, lawyers and systems of law, including an
approximate synonym of divine law, and also a form of ius gentium or the common law of
nations. The common lawyers, however, have used the expression “natural justice” with
surprising precision of meaning , as referring to two important but narrow principles only,
namely audi alteram partem (“hear both sides”), and nemo judex in causa sua potest (“no one can
be judge in his own cause).3

Rules of natural justice are about fairness and justice in the society. They address how judicial,
administrative or other organs are to function in the process of reaching a fair decision in
determination of any issue before them. These rules of fair-play in the administration of justice
are regarded as universal and rules of the wise. They are an integral part of the doctrine of rule of
law.4

1
P.P. Craig, (1994), Administrative Law, 3rd edtn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, p.281
2
Ibid
3
J.F. Garner, (1970), Administrative Law, Butterworths, London, p. 111
4
Chris Maina Peter, (1997), Human Rights in Tanzania: Selected Cases and Materials, Rüdiger Köppeverlag, Kölon,
p.426
1.2. Briefly History of Natural Justice
The principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, have roots dating back to
ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome, where notions of fairness in legal proceedings
were emphasized.5 However, the modern understanding of natural justice evolved through
English common law. One of the earliest articulations of natural justice principles is found in the
Magna Carta of 1215, which asserted the rights to due process and trial by jury. Over time, these
principles became integral to the English legal system.6

In the 17thcentury, English jurist Sir Edward Coke expanded on the concept, emphasizing the
rights of individuals to fair treatment and due process under the law. The principles of natural
justice were further developed in the 18th and 19th centuries through legal decisions and writings
by jurists like Sir William Blackstone and Jeremy Bentham. 7 These principles include the right to
a fair hearing, impartiality of decision-makers, and the right to be heard.

The principle of audi alteram partem ("hear the other side") and nemo judex in causa sua ("no
one should be a judge in their own cause") are central tenets of natural justice. They ensure that
parties have an opportunity to present their case and that decision-makers are unbiased and free
from conflicts of interest.8 In modern legal systems, the principles of natural justice are enshrined
in constitutions, statutes, and judicial decisions around the world. They form the foundation of
procedural fairness in administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings, safeguarding the rights of
individuals and promoting the rule of law.9

2.0. Precedents on Consequences of Non-Observation of Natural Justice

Failure to observe natural justice have serious consequences. Courts around the world have
consistently held that the failure to observe principles of natural justice can render administrative

5
P.P. Craig, (1994), Administrative Law, 3rd edtn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, p.283.
6
A.W. Bradley, and K.D. Ewing, (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th edtn, Pearson Education Ltd,
London, p.748
7
Ibid
8
Ibid
9
R. v. Kent Police Authority, ex p Godden [1971]2 QB 662; Chief Constable of North Wales v. Evans [1982]3 All ER
141.
actions void, invalid, or liable to be set aside. A classic example is that of Ridge v. Baldwin,10
where the House of Lords held that the dismissal of a police officer without giving him a fair
hearing was invalid and a breach of natural justice.

In R. v. Gaming Board ex parte Benaim and another,11 Lord Denning, MR said; at one time it
was said that the principles of natural justice only apply to judicial proceedings and not to
administrative proceedings. That heresy was scotched in Ridge v. Baldwin and others.12 At
another time it was said that the principles do not apply to the grant or revocation of licences.
That is too wrong.

In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation,13 the court established
the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" as a ground for judicial review. This case emphasized the
importance of natural justice as a facet of judicial review, stating that administrative actions that
are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to that decision are liable to be
set aside. This acts as a safeguard against the consequences of non-observance of natural justice.

In Nyirabu Gitano and 3 others v. Board Chairman,14 Songea Boys Secondary Schooli, students
of Songea Secondary School were complaining of maladministration, infliction of unreasonable
punishments and supply of bad food. They staged a demonstration to the Regional
Commissioner. The Regional Commissioner then spoke to students and members of staff. A
probe team was formed to look into the matter. It interviewed six student leaders and three other
students including one applicant but the rest were not interviewed or consulted in any way. The
team also collected other information which indicated the applicants were ring-leaders. The team
then recommended the expulsion of the applicants to the School Board, the recommendation
which was endorsed. In reaching the decision to expel the applicants from school, the applicants
were neither given an opportunity to contradict the evidence against them nor even told of
reasons of their expulsion. They challenged their expulsion in the High Court on ground of the
Board’s failure to observe the principle of natural justice. Samatta, JK, as he then was, granted

10
[1964] AC 40
11
[1970]2 All ER 528
12
[1964] AC 40.
13
[1948] 1 KB 223
14
High Court (at Songea), Misc Civil Application No 3 of 1994 (unreported).
certiorari and mandamus to quash the decision of the Board to expel applicants from school, and
directed the Board to consider the accusations made against the applicants de novo and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.

In Erasmus Ruhungu (As Administrator of the Estate of the late Gaudensia Rwakailima) v
Luckson Rutafubibwa Kiiza (Administrator of Estate of the late Angelina Bagenyi),15 the appeal
stems from a decision made by the High Court of Tanzania in Bukoba. Erasmus Ruhungu, acting
as the administrator of the late Gaudensia Rwakailima's estate, filed an application against
Angelina Bagenyi, who has since passed away. Ruhungu sought to revise a decision made by the
Resident Magistrate's Court of Bukoba regarding execution proceedings from Rukindo Primary
Court.

Bagenyi, the appellant, raised a preliminary objection in the High Court, arguing that the court
had not been properly approached, lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and that the application
was filed past its due time. The High Court Judge dismissed these objections, finding them
without merit. Subsequently, the High Court Judge considered the revision application. In doing
so, they took into account the arguments made during the preliminary objection hearing and
ultimately dismissed the revision application, determining it to be lacking in merit. The court of
Appeal held that; the natural justice is not only a common law principle but also a fundamental
constitutional right in Tanzania, under Article 13(b) (a). 16 Since both parties were not given the
opportunity to be heard before the revision application was decided, the decision was declared
void on the grounds of procedural unfairness. This underscores the importance of procedural
fairness and the right to be heard in legal proceedings, as enshrined in both common law and
constitutional provisions.

2.1. Circumstance where Failure of Natural Justice May not Affect Administration
Action
There are, however, circumstances under which the failure to observe natural justice may not
affect administrative action. These exceptions include cases of urgency, where immediate action
is required to prevent serious harm or danger. In these cases, the administrative authority may be
justified in acting swiftly without providing a hearing to the affected party. For example, in

15
[2023] TZHC 20607
16
Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania
Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs,17 the court ruled that the deportation of an
immigrant without a hearing was justified due to the urgency of the situation.

Another exception is when the affected party has waived their right to a hearing. In the case of
R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex parte Benaim,18 the court held that the applicant was not
entitled to a hearing for a gaming license as he had agreed to forego his right to a hearing. This
exception emphasizes the importance of voluntary waiver of rights in the context of natural
justice.

In certain circumstances, the principles of natural justice may be overridden by necessity.

Typically, rules against bias are set aside when the individual whose impartiality is in question is
the sole authority empowered to act. For instance, in the case of Phillips v. Eyre,19 it was
established that the Governor of a Colony could validly assent to an Act, despite requiring his
signature. A similar situation arises in Tanzania under section 28(2) of the Industrial Court Act, 20
where the Chairman of the Industrial Court is part of the Revisional Panel. If the panel needs to
review a decision made by the Industrial Court, chaired by the same Chairman and two
assessors, a conflict of interest may arise. However, since there is only one Chairman as
mandated by the Act, the Revisional Panel cannot convene without him, despite the Chairman's
involvement in the decision being reviewed.

During emergencies, proceedings may be conducted by individuals even if they appear biased.
Likewise, the right to be heard may be disregarded in such exigent circumstances. These
examples underscore the flexibility of the principles of natural justice when confronted with
situations where necessity dictates the suspension or modification of procedural norms.

2.2. Doctrine of Legitimacy

Furthermore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation can also play a role in limiting the
requirement of natural justice. In R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte M.F. Khan,21 the
House of Lords held that where a legitimate expectation has been created, the failure to afford an

17
[1969] 2 Ch 149
18
[1970] 2 QB 417
19
(1870) L.R.6 Q.B. 1
20
Section 28 (2) of the Industrial Court Act, [Cap 60 RE 2002]
21
[1981] AC 297
opportunity for representation may render the decision unfair and therefore liable to judicial
review.

The High Courts of Tanzania at least once applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation. This
was in the case of Mohamed Jawad Mrouch v Minister for Home Affairs.22 The applicant arrived
in Tanzania in 1987 and was granted a Residence Permit Class 'A' No.004307 on September 14,
1990, which was subsequently renewed on September 16, 1993, valid until September 12, 1994.
However, during this period, the permit was canceled by the Director of Immigration Services
and confirmed by the Minister for Home Affairs on December 2, 1993.

The Director cited authority under section (2) of the Immigration, 23 as the reason for
cancellation. The applicant's counsel argued that the true reason for cancellation was pending
criminal charges against the applicant, preventing the applicant from clearing their name by
defending the charges. The applicant sought to invalidate the cancellation, alleging bias by the
Minister and claiming they were punished without being heard. The court held that; the
applicant has a legitimate expectation of staying in the country until the expiry of his residence
permit. That expectation could be extinguished justifiably if, and only if, he had first been given
an opportunity to make representations to the authorities. It is after hearing him that the
authorities could have justly decided, after considering those representations, that it was in the
public interest to revoke the permit.24

Conclusion
Natural justice is a cornerstone of fair and just decision-making. Its observance ensures that
individuals are treated fairly and that decisions are made with due regard to the principles of
fairness and impartiality. The consequences of non-observance of natural justice can be severe,
leading to administrative actions being set aside or declared invalid. However, there are
exceptions to the requirement of natural justice, such as in cases of urgency, waiver, and
legitimate expectation. These exceptions serve to balance the need for fair process with the
practical realities of administrative decision-making.

REFERENCE
The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania [Cap 2 R.E 2008]
22
[1996] TLR 142.
23
Act No.8 of 1972
24
[1996] TLR 142.
CASE LAWS

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

Erasmus Ruhungu (As Administrator of the Estate of the late Gaudensia Rwakailima) v Luckson
Rutafubibwa Kiiza (Administrator of Estate of the late Angelina Bagenyi) [2023] TZHC
20607
Mohamed Jawad Mrouch v Minister for Home Affairs [1996] TLR 142.
Nyirabu Gitano and 3 others v. Board Chairman, High Court (at Songea), Misc Civil
Application No 3 of 1994 (unreported).
R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex parte Benaim [1970] 2 QB 417
R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte M.F. Khan [1981] AC 297
R. v. Gaming Board ex parte Benaim and another [1970]2 All ER 528
Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch 149

BOOKS
Bradley, A.W. & K.D. Ewing, (2007), Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th edtn,
Pearson Education Ltd, London.
Carroll, A., (2003), Constitutional Law and Administrative Law, 3rd edtn, Pearson, London.
Craig, P. P., (1994), Administrative Law, 3rd edtn, Sweet and Maxwell, Oxford.
Garner, J.F., (1970), Administrative Law, Butterworths, London.
Oluyede, P.A., (1973), Administrative Law in East Africa, Kenya Literature Bureau, Nairobi.
Peter, C.M., (1997), Human Rights in Tanzania: Selected Cases and Materials, Rüdiger
Köppeverlag, Kölon
Wade, H.W.R. & Forsyth, (2000), Administrative Law, 8th edtn, Oxford University Press,
London