NIGER DELTA UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
OVOM CAMPUS

ASSIGNMENT:
WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW?
COURSE TITLE:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW II
COURSE CODE:
JPL 403
SUBMITTED TO:
DR PETER NWANKWO
SUBMITTED BY:
EGBEBO TAMARAUEMOMOEMI EMMANUEL
UG/18/1384

JUNE 9, 2023
 INTRODUCTION
In modern governance administrative process cuts across the traditional role of
administration and combines into one, all the powers traditionally exercised by the
three arms of government. Thus, the executive performs variegated functions, viz.
to investigate, to prosecute, to prepare and adopt schemes, to issue and cancel
licenses, etc.(Administrative); to adjudicate on disputes, to impose fine and
penalty, etc. (Judicial); to make rules, regulations and bye laws, to fix prices etc.
(Legislative). With these all-encompassing powers of administration there is an
increase in the degree of interaction with the citizens and a correlative increase in
the interference with the rights of the citizens as well as breach of the rule of law.
To cure this inadequacy, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(as amended) safeguards against such possible interference by providing
mechanisms for checking and restraining the exercise of executive and other
powers of government. Such provisions include separation of powers limitation on
governmental powers, human rights, rule of law and other democratic principles,
many of which are aimed at limiting political abuse and ensuring that the powers
of the state are constrained so that the state cannot act capaciously to ensure
adherence to the rule of law and protection of human rights.
As another means of effective control, the Constitution also vests on the Judicial
arm of Government; the courts, the power of judicial review to check and restrain
arbitrary exercise of executive and legislative power to ensure protection of the
rights of the citizen and to uphold the rule of law.
Therefore, this work will be focused on the essentials of Judicial review, its
procedure and its resultant effects in the Nigerian Judicial and administrative
system.
BRIEF DISCUSS ON THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
As briefly stated earlier, Judicial review is an exclusive duty reserved for the
Judiciary which enables the courts when called upon to make a declaration either
validating or invalidating the constitutionality or otherwise of a legislative,
executive act or Administrative acts and even judicial act as the case may be. It is
a specialized remedy in public law by which the court exercises supervisory
jurisdiction over the acts of the executive and legislative arms of government. It
was further posited per learned Prof Nwabueze as “…the power of the court in
appropriate proceedings before it to declare a governmental measure either
contrary or in accordance with the constitution or other governing law, with the
effect of rendering the measure invalid or void or vindicating its validity…”. This
power was also examined in the case of Abdulkarin v Incar Nigeria Ltd 1 where
the supreme held inter alia the scope of judicial review within the Nigerian
constitutional jurisprudence thus:
In Nigeria, which has a written presidential constitution, judicial review entails
three different processes; namely:

1
(1992)7 NWLR (Pt 251) 1
 1. The courts particularly the Supreme Court, ensuring that every arm of
government plays its role in the true spirit of the principles of separation of
powers as provided for in the constitution.
2. That every public functionary performs his functions according to law,
including the Constitution; and
3. For the Supreme Court, that it reviews court decisions including its own,
when the need arises in order to ensure that the country does not suffer
under the same regime of absolute or wrong decisions.
This was also expounded in the American 2 case of Marbury v. Madison3 where the
Chief Justice Marshall of the United States of America in answering the question
whether an act repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land, held
that:
“Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions
contemplates them as forming the fundamental and paramount
law of the nation and consequently the theory of every such
Government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to
the constitution is void”.
Thus, when an individual has suffered a grievance at the hands of a public body,
he may be able to obtain redress through the court. Aside from the right to
appeal, there is also the right to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High courts
to review the decisions of government ministers, inferior courts, tribunals and
other administrative bodies to ensure that they do not act illegally, irrationally or
commit some procedural impropriety.4
However, it must be noted that the courts are not particularly interested in the
merits of the case or decision but rather on whether it is a decision the body is
entitled to make. This was emphasized by Lord Scarman when he stated thus:
“Judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of the judges but the judges
must observe the constitutional limits set…” 5
In 1977, a uniform, flexible, and comprehensive code of procedure for the
exercise of such power was introduced under Order 53, Rules of the Supreme
Court of England. The Nigerian Federal High Court and many States High Court
subsequently developed comprehensive codes of procedure which are substantially
similar to those in Order 53, R.S.C (now Order 54 R.S.C).

Notably, Order 34(1) Federal High Court Rues 2009 and Order 40(1) High Court of
Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules 2012 are in pari materia with Section 31 (1) and
(2) of the Senior Courts Act, U.K., 1981 and Order 54 (2) and (3) R.S.C. England
dealing with judicial review applications.6

2
Since we practice the same presidential democracy system of government.
3
(1803)5. U. S (Granch) 137, L. ed. 60.
4
Per Lord Diplock in CCSU v The Minister for the Civil Service (HL, 1984)
5
Nottinghamshire C.C v Secretary of State for Environment (HL 1986)
6
Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Nigeria, October 24, 2016. Available at
<http://jabitachambers.com/judicial-review-of-administrative-action-in-nigeria/> accessed 5th June 2023
Hence, it is without a doubt that Judicial review is most appropriately the bedrock
of democracy in Nigeria. This is because, without it, the rights and competencies
of one branch of government may be, with recklessness, put in jeopardy or
rendered ineffectual by another branch.
PROCEDURE FOR EFFECTING JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review is different from normal adjudicatory proceeding or an appeal. In
the exercise of its normal adjudication such as first instance hearing and
determination of issues of law and fact in a controversy, the judiciary exercises its
normal constitutional function of adjudication. It has to entertain all actions, make
all necessary determinations involving, law and facts and see that all parties get
their due according to the law of the land. In the case of an appeal, the court may
have to go into the merits of the case and the weight of evidence sustaining a
decision, it may have to rehear all or some aspects of the case and find support or
justification for the decision given below; it may have to quash a decision
appealed against and replace it with its own decision or do whatever the justice of
the case demands – for while an appeal process delves into the value of the
decision under scrutiny judicial review deals with the legality of the decision under
the examination of the court. Therefore, the courts can only review the actions
taken by the agency solely for the purpose of determining whether or not the
agency has acted within the limits prescribed by the enabling statute. The courts
cannot go into the matter de novo or set aside the agency’s decision merely
because the courts would have come to a different conclusion or decision.
This was elaborated In Military Governor of Imo State v. Nwauwa 7 where the
Supreme Court expounded the principles governing the exercise of judicial review.
In that case, the respondent challenged the exercise of power by the Military
Governor of Imo State to remove him as a traditional ruler of Izombe following
series of petitions and an inquiry set up by the Governor.
The Supreme Court held that the court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction in trying
to substitute its own opinion or views for the views of the panel of inquiry.
According to the Supreme Court:
a) Judicial review is not an appeal
b) The court must not substitute its judgment for that of the public body
whose decision is being reviewed.
c) The correct focus is not upon the decision but on the manner in which it was
reached.
d) What matters is legality and not correctness of the decision.
e) The reviewing court is not concerned with the merits of a target activity.
f) In a judicial review, the court must not stray into the realms of appellate
jurisdiction for that would involve the court in a wrongful usurpation of
power.
g) What the court is concerned with is the manner by which the decision being
impugned was reached. It is legality, not its wisdom that the court has to
look into for the jurisdiction being exercised by the court is not an appellate
jurisdiction but rather a supervisory one.

7
(1997)2 NWLR (Pt 490) 675
This section is thus concentrated on providing a brief analysis of the procedure for
judicial review in Nigeria, highlighting the key stages and principles involved
thereof.
Jurisdiction and Standing:
The Federal High Court and the State High Courts have jurisdiction over judicial
review cases in Nigeria. To bring a case, the applicant must have "locus standi" or
standing, meaning they must have sufficient interest in the matter or have been
directly affected by the decision or action being challenged.
Pre-action Protocols:
Before commencing a judicial review, the applicant is generally required to comply
with pre-action protocols. These protocols encourage parties to engage in pre-
action correspondence, explore alternative dispute resolution methods, and
provide an opportunity for resolving the matter without litigation.
Initiating the Judicial Review:
To initiate a judicial review, the applicant files an Originating Motion, which sets
out the grounds for review, the relief sought, and supporting affidavits. The court
may grant an order for leave (permission) to apply for judicial review if the case
has arguable merit. However, cases of judicial review are known to have
commenced by way of writ of summons, which is a procedure for commencement
of proceedings before the court on their normal adjudicatory process. For
instance, the case of Military Governor of Imo State v Nwauwa 8, a notable case on
judicial review was commenced by way of writ of summons. The courts’ attitude is
based on the reasoning that the mere fact that a case is brought to court under a
wrong law or procedure should not be allowed to defeat the action, provided that
the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of such cases.
Service and Response:
The applicant serves the Originating Motion on the respondent (the public body or
decision-maker being challenged). The respondent has the opportunity to file a
Counter-Affidavit and Written Address in response, setting out their arguments and
justifications for the decision or action under review.
Hearing and Submissions:
The court will schedule a hearing where both parties present their arguments. The
applicant's counsel makes oral submissions, highlighting the grounds for review and
supporting legal principles. The respondent's counsel counters these arguments and
defends the legality and constitutionality of the decision or action.
Examination of Evidence and Legal Principles:
The court examines the evidence presented, including affidavits, exhibits, and
relevant legal principles. The court will assess whether the decision or action being
challenged falls within the permissible scope of administrative discretion and
determine if any procedural irregularities or violations of fundamental rights have
occurred.

8
Ibid
Judgment and Remedies:
After considering all arguments and evidence, the court delivers its judgment. If
the court finds in favor of the applicant, it may grant several remedies, including:
a) Quashing or setting aside the decision or action under review.
b) Issuing a mandatory order compelling the public body to act in a certain
way.
c) Issuing a prohibitory order to prevent the public body from taking certain
actions.
d) Awarding damages or compensation to the applicant for any loss suffered.
Appeals:
Both parties have the right to appeal the decision of the court. The appeal process
generally follows the established appellate procedure, where the case is reviewed
by a higher court to determine if the lower court's decision was correct.
However, in practice it may be difficult to make a clear distinction between
judicial review properly so called and normal adjudicatory proceeding in Nigeria.
This may be attributed to the fact that in Nigeria judicial review is of common law
origin, and also in addition to other judicial proceedings is traceable to the
constitution. This is unlike in England where the power of judicial review is almost
entirely of common law origin. In Nigeria Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of
Nigeria vest all judicial powers in the court, thus we find that it is the same courts
that exercise judicial review that also conduct normal adjudicatory proceedings
such as first instance trial, and sometimes even appeal. Furthermore, in
contemporary adjudication in Nigeria, emphasis has shifted from dwelling on
technicalities to doing substantial justice. As a result, the High Courts may not
follow strictly the provisions of the High Court Rules relating to the
commencement of proceedings for judicial review, making it difficult to
distinguish actions coming to the court on judicial review from actions before the
court in its exercise of normal adjudicatory process.9
Consequently, today we have cases in which the court is exercising normal judicial
proceedings but in substance they are judicial review proceedings because what is
in issue before the court is entirely the legality or otherwise of an administrative
agency’s action or inaction. The result is that in Nigeria today, in order to
determine whether a given proceeding is a judicial review proceeding or not, we
have to look, not at the form of proceedings but on the substance of the
proceedings.16 If a review of the substance of a case reveals that what is in issue
is the legality or legal validity or otherwise of an administrative action, then it is a
matter of a judicial review notwithstanding the form of the action.
REASONS/GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The grounds for judicial review in Nigeria are primarily based on the Constitution,
although they can also arise from statutes or common law principles. Some
common grounds for judicial review in Nigeria include:

9
Angela E Obidimma, ‘The Impact of Judicial Review of Administration on the Application of Human Rights and
the Rule of Law in Nigeria’; AJCAL 1 (2017)
1. Ultra vires: This refers to actions or decisions taken by a public official or body
that go beyond the powers conferred upon them by law. If a decision or action is
found to be ultra vires, it can be declared null and void by the courts. When an
action or decision is deemed ultra vires, it means it goes beyond what is permitted
by law or the Constitution.
In the Nigerian context, ultra vires can apply to various entities, including
government officials, public bodies, regulatory agencies, and administrative
bodies. If an action or decision is found to be ultra vires, it can be challenged
through judicial review, and the court may declare it null and void.
Ultra vires can arise in different contexts, such as:
Executive Actions: If the President, Governors, or other executive officials exceed
their statutory or constitutional powers when making decisions or implementing
policies, those actions can be challenged as ultra vires.
Legislative Actions: If the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly pass
laws that are beyond their constitutional authority, the courts can declare such
laws as ultra vires and invalid.
Administrative Actions: Administrative bodies and regulatory agencies are
required to exercise their powers within the limits set by the law. If they act
beyond their authority or fail to follow due process, their actions can be
challenged as ultra vires.
Corporate Actions: Ultra vires can also apply to the actions of corporate entities,
such as companies or organizations. If a company exceeds the scope of its legal
powers as defined in its memorandum of association, the court can deem those
actions as ultra vires.
Challenging actions as ultra vires is an important mechanism to ensure that
government officials and public bodies act within the confines of the law and do
not abuse their powers. Judicial review plays a crucial role in holding these
entities accountable and safeguarding the rule of law in Nigeria.
Unconstitutionality: If a law, regulation, or government action is deemed to be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, it can be challenged through
judicial review. The court can strike down or invalidate such laws or actions.
In Nigeria, unconstitutionality serves as a valid ground for judicial review. The
Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law or action that
contravenes its provisions can be challenged in court on the basis of
unconstitutionality. Judicial review is the power of the courts to review the
constitutionality and legality of laws, acts, regulations, and actions of public
authorities.
The Constitution of Nigeria, adopted in 1999, provides for the separation of powers
among the three arms of government: the executive, the legislature, and the
judiciary. The judiciary is vested with the responsibility to interpret and apply the
provisions of the Constitution, and it has the power of judicial review to ensure
that the other branches of government operate within the bounds of the
Constitution.
Under the Nigerian legal system, any person whose rights have been violated or
who alleges that a law or action is unconstitutional can approach the courts for
redress. The courts have the authority to declare any law, act, or action
inconsistent with the Constitution as null and void to the extent of its
inconsistency. This power is derived from the doctrine of the supremacy of the
Constitution, which means that the Constitution is the highest law in the country,
and any law that is inconsistent with it is void. When a case is brought before the
court, the judge examines the provisions of the Constitution and compares them
with the law or action in question. If the judge finds that the law or action violates
any provision of the Constitution, they can strike it down or render it invalid. This
process ensures that the Constitution remains the ultimate authority in Nigeria and
protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.
It's important to note that the Nigerian judiciary has played a significant role in
upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law in the country. Judicial review
based on the ground of unconstitutionality has been used to safeguard human
rights, protect the integrity of the democratic process, and maintain the balance
of power among the branches of government.
Illegality: Judicial review can be sought when a decision or action is taken in
violation of existing laws or legal principles. This may include situations where a
decision-maker failed to follow the prescribed procedures, acted in bad faith, or
breached legal requirements. When a court determines that a decision or action of
a public authority is illegal, it means that the authority has acted outside the
scope of its powers or has acted in contravention of the law.
To challenge a decision or action based on illegality, an aggrieved party can bring
an application before the appropriate court seeking a review. The court will then
examine whether the public authority's decision or action was taken within the
legal framework and in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations, and
procedures.
If the court finds that the decision or action was illegal, it may quash or set aside
the decision, order a re-examination of the matter, or provide any other
appropriate remedy. The court's decision in a judicial review proceeding is binding
on the public authority, and it aims to ensure that the authority acts lawfully and
within its prescribed powers.
Procedural impropriety: This ground focuses on whether the decision-making
process was fair and followed the principles of natural justice. It includes ensuring
that the decision-maker acted impartially, gave all parties an opportunity to be
heard, and considered relevant factors.
Irrationality: Also known as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" or "unreasonable
exercise of power," this ground involves reviewing a decision to determine if it is
so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made it. It applies when a
decision is arbitrary, illogical, or lacks a rational basis.
Error of law: Judicial review can be sought if an error of law is committed by a
decision-maker. This includes misinterpretation or misapplication of the law,
failure to consider relevant legal principles, or reliance on irrelevant
considerations.
 It's important to note that these grounds for judicial review are not exhaustive,
and the specific grounds available may vary depending on the circumstances and
the laws in question. The Nigerian judiciary has the authority to review executive
and legislative actions to ensure their conformity with the Constitution and the
rule of law.
RAMIFICATIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW (BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE)
As stated throughout the span of this work, Judicial review is a fundamental aspect
of constitutional governance which empowers courts to examine and invalidate
laws or governmental actions that are deemed unconstitutional. It serves as a
crucial check and balance on the powers of the legislative and executive branches,
ensuring that they act within the confines of the constitution. This essay explores
the wide-ranging ramifications of judicial review, examining its role in
safeguarding democracy, protecting individual rights, promoting constitutional
interpretation, and fostering social progress.
1. Safeguarding Democracy:
Judicial review ensures that laws and government actions comply with the
provisions and principles enshrined in the constitution, maintaining the integrity of
the legal framework. It also prevents legislative and executive overreach,
preserving the balance of powers and preventing the concentration of authority in
any one branch.
2. Protecting Minority Rights:
Judicial review serves as a shield for minority rights, preventing the tyranny of the
majority by striking down laws that infringe upon fundamental freedoms and civil
liberties. It ensures equal protection under the law, promoting inclusivity and
preventing discriminatory practices or policies from gaining traction.
3. Preserving Fundamental Democratic Values:
It acts as a bulwark against potential abuses of power, promoting transparency and
accountability in government actions. It also upholds democratic principles, such
as free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assembly, ensuring their
protection even in the face of political or popular opposition.
4. Protecting Individual Rights:
Judicial review provides an avenue for interpreting the constitution, enabling
courts to clarify and adapt its provisions to contemporary societal challenges and
changing values. It ensures that constitutional rights are not confined to historical
contexts, allowing their evolution in response to societal progress.
5. Correcting Legislative and Executive Errors:
The concept of Judicial review acts as a corrective mechanism, striking down laws
or executive actions that infringe upon individual rights. It guards against potential
legislative or executive errors, ensuring that fundamental rights are not
compromised due to hasty or ill-considered decisions.
6. Acting as the Final Arbiter:
Judicial review offers a forum for resolving disputes and conflicts, allowing the
courts to make final and binding decisions on constitutional matters. It provides a
 mechanism for individuals and groups to seek redress and justice when their rights
are violated, fostering trust in the legal system and promoting social stability.
7. Promoting Constitutional Interpretation and Social Progress:
Judicial review necessitates a careful analysis of competing constitutional values
and principles, requiring courts to strike a balance between competing interests. It
fosters a robust dialogue on constitutional interpretation, contributing to the
development of legal doctrines and principles that shape societal norms.
8. Encouraging Legislative Deliberation:
Judicial review encourages lawmakers to draft legislation that adheres to
constitutional principles, fostering greater deliberation and adherence to the rule
of law. It prompts legislators to consider the constitutional implications of their
actions, leading to more thoughtful and well-crafted laws.
9. Adapting to Social Change:
Judicial review allows courts to respond to evolving societal norms and values,
ensuring that constitutional rights remain relevant and effective. It has played a
vital role in expanding civil rights, including landmark decisions on racial equality,
gender equality etc., thus contributing to societal progress.
The doctrine of Judicial review plays a pivotal role in safeguarding democracy,
protecting individual rights, promoting constitutional interpretation, and fostering
social progress. By upholding the constitution, preventing abuses of power, and
striking down unconstitutional laws, the judiciary serves as a bulwark against
tyranny and ensures that government actions align with democratic values.
Moreover, the power of judicial review empowers individuals and marginalized
groups, guaranteeing their fundamental rights and liberties. As an instrument of
legal interpretation and social change, judicial review continues to shape and
refine the principles upon which democratic societies are built, reinforcing the
notion that the judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and protector of the
rule of law.
Nevertheless, while judicial review has numerous advantages in safeguarding
democracy and protecting individual rights, it is essential to acknowledge some of
its potential disadvantages. It is important to note that these disadvantages should
not undermine the overall significance and necessity of judicial review but rather
serve as points of consideration for a balanced perspective. Its disadvantageous
effects include:
1. Judicial Activism:
Judicial review can be susceptible to judicial activism, where judges may go
beyond their constitutional authority and impose their personal or political beliefs.
Critics argue that activist judges may overstep their boundaries and encroach upon
the powers of the legislative and executive branches, potentially undermining the
democratic process.
2. Democratic Legitimacy:
Critics argue that unelected judges, who serve lifetime appointments in many
jurisdictions, have the power to overturn laws passed by elected representatives,
 raising concerns about the democratic legitimacy of judicial review. Some question
whether an unelected body should have the authority to invalidate laws enacted
by elected officials, as it may undermine the principle of popular sovereignty.
3. Delayed Decision-Making:
Judicial review cases can often be time-consuming, leading to delays in the
implementation of laws or policies. The lengthy judicial process can hinder
efficient governance and impede the ability of elected representatives to address
urgent issues in a timely manner.
4. Lack of Accountability:
Judges, being insulated from direct public accountability, may face limited
consequences for their decisions, even if they are deemed controversial or flawed.
Critics argue that this lack of accountability may undermine the checks and
balances within a democratic system, potentially leading to judicial overreach.
5. Inherent Judicial Subjectivity:
Judicial review involves judges interpreting constitutional provisions, and their
decisions can be influenced by their own personal biases, values, and legal
philosophies. Critics contend that this subjectivity can lead to inconsistent
interpretations of the law and a lack of predictability in judicial decisions.
6. Potential for Judicial Overreach:
In certain cases, judicial review can be perceived as an excessive exercise of
judicial power, as judges may overturn laws based on their own judgments and
preferences rather than strict constitutional interpretation. Critics argue that this
potential for judicial overreach may undermine the principle of separation of
powers and disrupt the delicate balance among the branches of government.
Accordingly, it is important to address these concerns and strike a balance
between the powers of the judiciary and the elected branches of government.
Judicial restraint, respect for precedent, and adherence to constitutional
principles can help mitigate these disadvantages and ensure that judicial review
remains an effective mechanism for upholding the rule of la w and protecting
individual rights.
7. Lack of Technological Know-How:
The world is becoming a global village; the need for information technology is now
mandatory for every personnel in the judiciary especially the judicial officers. In
Nigeria, recording in various courts is still done in long hands. A judicial officer
writes down all the testimonies of witnesses in long hand. These written
documents are afterwards kept in courts for safe custody. Often times, court
records are lost or they may be bugled or stolen from the court premises. The
need for information technology is a necessity for judicial officers as information
will be adequately captured and passed on digitally. Filling of processes online by
lawyers and litigants should be encouraged. Information technology compliant
should be a sine qua non for the appointment of judicial officers and those who are
already in the service should be trained and retrained on ICT.
Remedies for effective Judicial Review
 Generally, an applicant for judicial review must have an eye on a specific remedy,
depending on the nature of the power being challenged and the form of grievances
he has. If there is a statutory remedy he must go for it, particularly where it is
exclusive. Even were such a relief is not exclusive an applicant for review may be
compelled to exhaust all available statutory remedies (such as an appeal to a
higher administrative officer, a tribunal or a minister) before resorting to any
prerogative and other alternatives.
Remedies available to the aggrieved party in judicial review cases are mainly
prerogative in nature and include the orders of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus. Other remedies include the equitable remedies of injunction and
declaration as well as the common law remedy of damages/restitution.
1. Mandamus:
An order of mandamus is an order to compel the performance of a public duty, as
a first resort where no other remedy is available when a public institution fails to
perform a public duty, the civil rights and obligations of some citizens are bound
to be affected, it is an order which a court of law can make as a consequential
order in any deserving case before it. An example of a Mandamus is evident in the
case of Architect’s Registration Council of Nigeria (Re Majoroh) v. Prof. M.A.
Fasasi10, the Supreme Court made an order compelling the Architect’s Registration
Council of Nigeria to register the appellant whose right to be so registered had
been upheld by the court four years earlier. Also, in Gani Fawehinmi v. Alilu Akilu
& Anor11, the Lagos State Attorney-General refused to endorse his refusal to
prosecute on an application brought by a private prosecutor. The application was
for leave to effect a private prosecution of the security officers suspected of
having murdered a journalist. After a protracted challenge of the locus standi of
the applicant, to bring a private prosecution, a Lagos High Court finally ordered
the Lagos State Attorney General to do her duty. In the event, her office opted to
prosecute the suspects directly. A possible limitation of the mandamus remedy is
the requirement, often strictly enforced, that there should be no other remedy
equally conveniently available.
2. Certiorari
This is an order available for an individual who seeks annulment of an
administrative decision. The order of certiorari is the most sought after of the
prerogative remedies in judicial review proceedings and will often be the only
remedy which is required. Historically certiorari and prohibition were originally the
means by which the court of King’s Bench in both England and Ireland restrained
inferior courts from exceeding their jurisdiction; and both are still used for that
purpose by the High Court today. However, their scope has been extended beyond
this.
Certiorari is an order which enables a superior tribunal to call upon an inferior
tribunal to bring up the record upon which the inferior court or administrative
tribunal based its decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature for review, and if
bad to be quashed. It enables the superior tribunal to review that record with a
view to ascertaining the legality of the decision based on it. Thus, where

10
(1987)3 N.W.L.R. 42.
11
(1988)2 W.L.R. (Pt. 67) 122.
 consequent upon the decision the superior court establishes that there is a want or
excess of jurisdiction, or denial of natural justice or error of law on the face of the
record the order of certiorari will lie.
In Garba v University of Maiduguri 12 the Supreme Court held that the University
disciplinary panel had exceeded its jurisdiction and invoked the remedy of
certiorari to quash the panel’s decision. The panel had been set up to investigate
alleged acts of looting and arson against demonstrating students. The students
were found guilty and several amongst them Garba, were rusticated. They filed an
action seeking their reinstatement.
3. Prohibition:
The order of prohibition issues to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from
exceeding or continuing to exceed its jurisdiction or infringing the rules of natural
justice or acting in error of law. It is equally governed by similar principles as
certiorari, except that it does not lie when once a final decision has been given. In
other words, the difference between certiorari and prohibition is essentially one of
timing. Prohibition issues to restrain the making of a decision in excess of
jurisdiction etc, certiorari to quash such a decision where it had already been
made. Both followed the same course of development, being extended to cover
administrative bodies insofar as these resembled courts. Consequently, a person or
body amenable to certiorari would also be subject to prohibition, and vice versa.
In Gani Fawehinmi v Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee 13, a High Court
issued an order prohibiting the disciplinary committee from sitting over charges
preferred against the applicant. The applicant contended that the body as
constituted could not give him a fair hearing. The Attorney General was
prosecuting through one of his subordinates and was also statutorily the chairman
of the disciplinary committee.
4. Injunction:
This is an order issued by the court in its equitable jurisdiction requiring a party to
either do a particular thing (a mandatory injunction) or to refrain from doing a
particular thing (a prohibitory injunction). In its scope injunction appears to be
virtually infinite for it is both a private and public law remedy. It is a familiar
remedy in many areas of private law, such as contract, tort, and family law. Its
role in public law seems to be more circumscribed as a result of the existence of
prohibition. Yet even in public law it performs an essential function since it may
be granted against bodies whose function contains no judicial element.
Under the English legal system, for centuries the decree of injunction was awarded
solely by the chancery court. This is so, because for a considerable length of time
(up till the 19th century) under the English legal system, law and equity were
administered in separate courts. However, in Nigeria the courts since
independence are enjoined by statutes to administer law and equity
concurrently.21Thus the courts have wide jurisdiction to award the equitable
remedy of injunction.
5. Declaration:
This is a conclusive statement by a court of the pre-existing rights of the parties; a
court’s declaration or statement resolving a dispute as to the meaning or;
application of the law applicable to a situation in which the applicant has a
12
(1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18)550.
13
(1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 7) 300.
sufficient interest. Technically, the order of declaration has almost no mandatory
or restraining effect. Declarations are often accompanied by consequential relief
ordering or restraining certain conducts; a mere declaration cannot be executed or
enforced. This remedy is applicable to both private and public law.

CONCLUSION

The administration in modern governance due to the exigencies of modern

government combines into one all the powers traditionally exercised by the three
arms of government. Therefore, in order to avoid possible abuse of powers,
tyranny and or oppression against the doctrine of separation of powers there must
be a means of checking the powerful organ of government. It is for this reason that
the constitution vests in the judiciary the power of judicial review to check and
restrain possible arbitrary exercise of powers. With regards to this duty of the
judiciary in Nigeria with particular reference to the protection of the fundamental
rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of rule of
law, they have made tremendous efforts to live up to their esteemed position of
the defender of the constitution in a plethora of cases. However, as a result of
some seeming loopholes in the general principle of judicial review as well as the
peculiar problems of the Nigerian legal system and the Nigerian judiciary, judicial
review has not attained its optimum usefulness in checking the actions of the
infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizens and upholding the rule of
law.

Therefore, for a more effective application of judicial review to safeguard the

fundamental rights and uphold the doctrine of rule of law in Nigeria there is need
to review the doctrine of judicial review and its application in the Nigerian judicial
system so as to appropriate the gains inherent in the doctrine. In this regard the
following steps may be taken:

1. The Nigerian courts need to adopt the modern trends in judicial review,
particularly in line with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Fawehinmi v
Abacha. Where the circumstances dictate the general nature of the
jurisdiction of the court should enable it to make a pronouncement on the
merits or wisdom of an administrative decision in line with modern trends
in administrative law.
2. The independence of the judiciary need to be enhanced by all stake
holders. Members of the judiciary must ensure that they maintain the
independence of the judiciary by making efforts to eschew all personal
biases or prejudices in arriving at the decisions in matters before them. The
National Judicial Council must be active in monitoring the conduct and
performance of judicial officers. The government on its own part should
avoid undue interference with the judicial officers in the performance of
 their functions and ensure that the constitutional provisions to secure the
financial independence of the judiciary complied with.
3. The new trend on the issue of locus standi in Nigeria is a very welcome
change that will ensure the security of human rights and the rule of law in
the country. However, a lot still needs to be done to ensure that the issue
is put to rest. As the Court of Appeal stressed in the case of Fawehinmi v
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 14, there is need to amend the
constitution on the issue of locus standi and access to court by specifically
providing for access to court by any Nigerian in other to preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution, like it operates in some other countries.
Finally, the decision of Fawehinmi’s case not being a Supreme Court
decision has not finally settled the controversy on the issue of locus standi.

14
(2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 275