Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:17:03.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“Autonomic judicial review”: powers in search of identity and assertion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Extract

In English law, since 1977 at least, the term “application for judicial review” has come to refer to the special method of applying for public law remedies in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over inferior courts and administrative bodies or authorities. Moreover, die fine expositions flowing from that jurisdiction—comprising judicial decisions, dicta and learned writings alike—have tended to sound at points as if “judicial review” might be more or less coterminous with “supervisory review”. A useful introduction to the subject, ostensibly setting out “to examine the various different review jurisdictions vested in die English courts”, however, ends up acknowledging and treating only the appellate and supervisory jurisdictions.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Emery, C. T. and Smythe, B., Judicial Review: Legal Limits of Official Power, London, 1986, 37.Google Scholar

2 [1973] 1 GLR 59 at 67.

3 See Thynne v. Thynne [1955] 3 All ER 120, per Morris, L.J., at 145.

4 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edn., Vol. 26, para. 555.

5 Sierra Leone High Court Rules (1960): Order 24, rule 10. See also Halsbury’s Laws, op. cit., paras. 556, 557.

6 Sierra Leone High Court Rules (1960): Order 23, rule 15; Order 25, rule 12. See also Halsbury’s Laws, op. cit., paras. 556, 559.

7 Per Crabbe, A., J.S.C., Loga v. Davordzi (1966) GLR 530 SC, at 540.Google Scholar

8 [1891–94] All ER Rep 227.

9 [1929] AC 242.

10 [1970–71] ALR SL 391.

11 [1986] 4 NWLR 162 SC.

12 [1987] 2 NWLR 126.Google Scholar

13 [1990] LRC (Const) 443 at 474.

14 1985 AIR 1585.

15 [1985] 2 All ER 355.Google Scholar

16 [1986] 2 All ER 334.Google Scholar

17 [1983] 1 All ER 765.Google Scholar

18 [1993] 2 LRC 349.Google Scholar

19 [1986] 3 All ER 652.Google Scholar

20 See, for example, s. 84 of the 1961 Constitution; ss. 66(1) and (9), s. 72 and s. 95(7) of the 1971 Constitution; s. 13(2) of the Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act 1971; s. 3 of the Courts (Amendment) Act 1972; s. 7 of and the 1st Schedule to the Laws (Adaptation) Act 1972; and s. 2 of the Courts (Amendment) Act 1973.

21 See especially Fosuhene v. Pomaa (1987–88) GLRD 69; Practice Direction: Reviews in the Supreme Court (1987–88) GLRD 80; Bisi v. Kwayk (1987–88) GLRD 84; Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Ltd. v. Nartey (1987–88) 105; Ababio v. Mensah (1989–90) GLRD 60; Ribeiro v. Ribeim (1989–90) GLRD 89; and Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) v. Farmex Ltd (1989–90) GLRD 139.

22 (1987–8) GLRD 105.

23 Halsbury’s Laws of England: 3rd edn., Vol. 9 (1954), para. 919; 4th edn., Vol. 10 (1975), para.819.

24 (1667–8) 1 Moo. PC 117.

25 As the court of final appeal in Sierra Leone, the Supreme Court is also invested with original and/or reference jurisdictions under various statutory provisions, including ss. 28, 45, 104, 122, 124,127 and 144 of the Constitution, for example.

26 For a selection of relevant authorities, see: Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 QBD 764; Smurthwaite v. Hannay [1891–94] All ER Rep 865; Moore v. Tayee [1934] 2 WACA 43; 1 All ER 108 CA; and Coker v. Coker (1950–56) ALR SL 130.

27 [1961] 3 All ER 1169.Google Scholar

28 [1943] 1 All ER 108.Google Scholar

29 [1958] 3 WALR 274.Google Scholar

30 (1962) 2 SLLR 10.

31 [1957] 2 WALR 214.Google Scholar

32 [1994] 1 LRC 114.Google Scholar

33 [1955] 3 All ER 129.Google Scholar