TUMAINI UNIVERSITY

IRINGA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

FACULTY OF LAW
COURSE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW II.

COURSE CODE: LAW 211.

LECTURER’S NAME: MATTO, P. MR.

YEAR: LLB II.

STUDENT’S NAME: SANGA, KHERY.

DUE DATE: 23rd MAY 2007.

QUESTION: Give a lengthy discussion on the ‘rules of natural justice’ as

Applicable in Tanzania using the following as guidance;
a) Meaning
b) Divisions/ Types of the rules
c) Their Sources
d) Their relevancy to administrative bodies when making
decisions or creating laws
e) Binding nature of the rules
f) Effects/ consequences of non adherence to the rules
g) How can the breach of the rules be enforced
h) Four case in Tanzania on application of the rules

a) Meaning.
Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. It is not easy to define what
natural justice is. It is a vague and ambiguous concept. Rules of natural justice are about
fairness and justice in the society. They address how judicial, administrative and 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 1.
Lord Usher in the case of Vionet v. Barret2 said that, rules of natural justice are indicators
of the natural sense of what is right and wrong. Meggary, J in the case of John v. Rees
3
defined the same as justice that is simple and elementary, as distinct from justice that is
complex, sophisticated and technical. The concept of natural justice is not very clear and
therefore, it is not possible to give a precise and concise definition of it; yet the principles
of natural justice are accepted and enforced. The same was stated in the case of Abbot v.
Sulivan4, that rules of natural justice are better known than described and easier
proclaimed than defined. Rules of natural justice are rules about fairness and justice in
the society. These rules provides how bodies are to function or reach a fair decision, they
are rules of procedures for administrative actions.
b) Types of the rules of natural justice.
Basically, there were two rules of natural justice, which were rule against bias (Nemo
judex in causa sua), and the right to be heard (Audi alteram paterm). The right to know
reasons for the decision ( Nullum arbitrium sine rationbus) is considered to be the third
principle of natural justice. These divisions are hereunder expounded clearly;
i) The rule against bias is the rule which demands that no one should be a judge in his
own cause. This rule is based on three maxims namely; (a) no man shall be a judge in his
own cause5, that is a judge should decide a case impartially. A judge is supposed to be
indifferent to the parties to the controversy; he must be in position to act judicially and to
decide the matter objectively. (b)the second maxim is, justice should not only be done,

1
Maina, C. (1997). Human Rights in Tanzania Pg 426.
2
[1885] 55 QB 39.
3
(1969) 2 All ER 274: (1970) 1 Ch D 345.
4
(1952) 1 KB 189 (195) : (1952) 1 All ER 226.
5
Lord Coke in Egerton v. Lord Derby (1613) 12 Co. Rep 11.
but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done6. (c) the third one is, judges like
Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion.7
There are three types of bias which are, pecuniary bias, personal bias and bias as to the
subject matter.
In pecuniary bias is where the judge has monetary interests in one of the parties to the
case which leads him to be biased. For instance in the landmark case of Dimes v. Grand
Junction Canal Ltd8, where the Lord Chancellor dismissed the appeals and confirmed the
decrees which were appealed against in the company which he was a shareholder. The
House of Lords quashed the decision and inter alia stated that it is of the last importance
the maxim that no one should be a judge in his own cause should be held sacred. Also in
Dr Bonham9 who was fined by the College of physicians for practicing in the city of
London without the licence of the College. The statute provided that the fines should go
half to the King and half to the college. The claim was disallowed by coke, C.J. as the
College had a financial interest in its own judgment and was a judge in its own cause.
Personal bias: a number of circumstatnces may give rise to personal bias, here a judge
may be a relative, friend or business associate of a party. For instance in the case of
Cottle v. Cottle, the chairman of the bench was a friend of the wife’s family, and the wife
told the husband that the chairman would decide the case in her favour. The order of the
bench was quashed on the ground of bias.
Bias as to the subject matter, arise when the judge has a general interest in the subject
matter of the dispute. Bias as to the subject matter willnot operate to disqualify a decision
maker unless he has identified himself with the subject matter of the dispute. For instance
in the case of R v. Beal Justices, a magistrate who subscribed to a society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals wasnot disqualified from trying a charge brought by that
body of cruelty to the horse.
ii) Right to be heard: this is the second fundamental principle of natural justice, this
principle has two elements which are, notice and hearing. Audi alteram partem means
hear the other side, or no man should be condemned unheard, or both sides must be heard
before passing any order. For instance in the case of Painter v. Liverpool Oil Gas Light
6
Lord Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices (1924) 1 KB 256 (259): (1923) All ER 233.
7
Justice Bowen in Lesson v. General Council (1889) 43 Ch D 336 (385) : (1886-90) All ER 78.
8
(1852) 3 HL 759: 17 Jur 73.
9
(1610) 8 Co. Rep.113 b: 77 ER 646.
Co10 where it was stated that, a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an
opportunity of being heard. The historic case of Ridge v. Baldwin11 has rightly been
described as the magna carta of natural justice. In this case it was held that the power of
dismissal could not be exercised without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
iii) Duty to give reasons: this is the new principle which has developed recently. This rule
requires decision makers to give reasons for the decision. This rule arose in the dissenting
judgment of Lord Denning in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and others 12,
who said that reasons must be given whenever it is fair to do so, not always but
sometimes it always depends on what is fair in the circumstances. Also in the case of R
v. Immigration Appeals Tribunal ex parte Khan (Mahmud),13Lord Lane stated that, “A
party appearing before the tribunal is entitled to know…what is to which the tribunal is
addressing its mind…Second, the appellant is entitled to know the basis of facts of which
the conlusion has been reached.”
c) Source of the rules of natural justice.
The source of rules of natural justice is as hereunder shown:
i)They originated from natural law or divine law, this is the major source. According to
the case of R v. University of Cambridge14 where Dr. Bentley was deprived of his degrees
by the Cambridge University on account of his alleged misconduct without giving any
notice or opportunity of hearing. The court of Kings Bench declared the decision as null
and void. Fortescue, J. stated that, the first hearing in human history was given in the
Garden of Eden. His Lordship observed that, “Even God himself did not pass sentence
upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. ‘Adam’, says God, ‘Where
art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst
not eat?’” So this shows clearly that the first origin of these rules is the divine law, that is
from God himself.
ii) The second source is common law, according to de Smith 15, the term natural justice
expresses the close relationship between the common law and the moral principles and

10
(1836) A&E 433 (448-49).
11
(1964) AC 40: (1963) 2 All ER 66: (1963) 2 WLR 935 (HL).
12
(1971) 1 All ER 1148 (1154): (1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742.
13
[1883] All ER 420.
14
(1723) 1 Str 757: 93 ER 698.
15
Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 1995, pp. 377-79.
describes what is right and what is wrong. There are various cases which have their origin
from common law, for instance the case of Ridge v. Baldwin16, is described as the magna
carta of natural justice.
iii) Also the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended from
time to time recently being in 2005. Article 13 (6) (a) of the constitution provides that,
“When the rights and duties of any person are being determined by the court or any other
agency, that person shall be entitled to a fair hearing and to the right of appeal or other
legal remedy against the decision of the other agency concerned.” So with the
incorporation of the bill of rights in the Tanzanian constitution in 1984 the rules of
natural justice were made part of the basic law of the land. This incorporation gave rules
of natural justice a special legal position in the legal system of Tanzania.
iv) Precedents is another source of the rules of natural justice in Tanzania, for instance in
the case of Mahona v. University of Dar es Salaam17, where the applicant was dismissed
in disciplinary grounds and was not given the right to be heard by the defendants. The
court held that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice. Also in the case of
Hypolito Cassiano De Souzza v. Chairman and members of Tanga Town Council 18the
Court provided a basic ratio decidendi concerning the rules of natural justice.
d) Relevancy to administrative bodies.
Administrative bodies have to adhere to the rules of natural justice when making
decisions which affect people’s rights and their interests. When administrative bodies are
making various decisions such as disciplinary measures, rules of natural justice become
relevant. For a longtime in Tanzania and in many other countries, there had been a belief
which is of course wrong, that certain institutions in the society are isolated from the
rules of natural justice. It was taken for granted that administrative bodies and various
institutions have their own laws and procedures to guide them. Lord Reid in the case of
Ridge v. Baldwin, clearly showed that natural justice is relevant even to administrative
bodies.
e) Binding nature of the rules.

16
(1964) AC 40: (1963) 2 All ER 66: (1963) 2 WLR 935 (HL).
17
[1981] TLR 303.
18
[1961] EA 377( Tanganyika).
Generally, no provision is found in any statute for the observance of the principles of
natural justice by the adjudicating authorities. Administrative bodies, judicial bodies and
quasi-judicial bodies are bound to adhere to the rules of natural justice even though they
are not codified in any statute. The law is well settled after the powerful pronouncement
of Byles, J. in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works19, wherein His Lordship observed
that, “A long course of decisions, beginning with Dr Bentley’s case 20 and ending with
some very recent cases, establish that although there are positive words in the statute
requiring that a party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the
omission of the legislature.” Also in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin21 where the Chief
Constable was dismissed from work by the Brighton watch committee without being
given the particulars of his dismissal and the opportunity of being heard. The court held
that in dismissing the plaintiff as they did when they appointed him. The decision was
quashed. The House of Lords inter alia held that, from this case rules of natural justice
applies to all decisions. In the case of Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, Lord
Denning observed that, it is now well settled that the statutory body entrusted with the
discretion must act fairly, it does not matter whether the functions are judicial, quasi-
judicial or administrative. Also in the case of State of Orissa v. Binapani22, speaking for
the supreme court, Shah, J observed that, “it is true that the order is administrative in
character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences…must be
made consistently with the rules of natural justice.” Also in the case Patman Garments
Industries Ltd v. Tanzania Manufacturers Ltd23, the court of Appeal ruled that, the rules
of natural justice must be strictly observed by any body or person performing any
function which involves determination of rights, duties or interests of any person or
persons. So, the rules of natural justice are binding to administrative bodies, judicial
bodies and quasi-judicial bodies.
f) Consequences of non adherence to the rules.
When a body violates the rules of natural justice then the consequence is that the decision
is rendered null and void. For instance in the case of Mahona v. University of Dar es

19
(1863) 14 CBNS 180.
20
R v. University of Cambridge (1723) 1 str 557.
21
(1964) AC 40: (1963) 2 All ER 66: (1963) 2 WLR 935 (HL).
22
AIR 1967 SC 1269 (1272): (1967) 2 SCR 625.
23
[1981] TLR 303.
Salaam24, the judge underlined the importance of the rules of natural justice and indicated
that non adherence to these rules renders the decision made null and void. Also in the
case of R v. University of Cambridge25,where Dr Bentley was deprived his degrees by the
Cambridge University on account of his alleged misconduct without giving any notice or
opportunity of hearing. The court of King’s Bench declared the decision as null and void.
Principally, non adherence to the rules of natural justice renders the decision null and
void hence ultra vires. The decision of the body becomes as good as nothing.
g) How can the breach of rules be enforced.
The breach of the rules of natural justice is enforced mainly by two ways;
i)Through judicial review, that is the court reviews the decision of the administrative
body or tribunal through prerogative orders which are mandamus and certiorari, which
are applied by the affected or aggrieved party. For instance in the case of Hypolito
Cassiano De Souzza v. Chairman and members of Tanga Town Council 26, where two
councilors of the Tanga Town Council made a complaint that the appellant was using a
fireman employed by the council and worked under him as a personal house servant
during working hours. At the hearing before the Finance Committee of the council, the
party and his advocate were kept out and were not given particulars of the charges against
them. The appellant applied to the High court for the writs of certiorari and mandamus
asking that the recommendations of the committee be quashed and the committee be
directed to hear his appeal. Being aggrieved, he appealed to the Court of Appeal for East
Africa; the court granted the writs as applied for. Also in the case of Gitano Nyirabu and
3 others v. Board Chairman, Songea Boys secondary school board and 3 others 27, this
case arose out of unrest at songea boys due to maladministration, infliction of
unreasonable punishments. The probe team expelled 4 students for being leaders in the
strike, without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The applicants being aggrieved
applied for judicial review through mandamus and certiorari. This application is the
effective way of enforcing the breach of rules of natural justice.
ii) Through appeal to the higher administrative body in the hierarchy. This is another
means through which the aggrieved party may enforce the breach of the rules. For
24
[1981] TLR 55.
25
(1723) 1 Str 757 : 93 ER 698.
26
1961] EA 377( Tanganyika).
27
High court of Tanzania at Songea, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3 of 1994 (Unreported).
instance in the case of Mahona v. University of Dar es Salaam 28, where Mahona was
terminated from employment on disciplinary grounds, and he appealed to the Labour
Conciliation Board and was successful.
h) Four cases in Tanzania on application of the rules.
i)Simeon Manyaki v. The Institute of Finance Management 29, where the applicant a third
year student was dismissed for leakage of exams without being afforded an opportunity
to be heard. It was held that an administrative body had a duty to act judicially in
accordance with the rules of natural justice. The dismissal was quashed.
ii) Masumbuko Rashid v. R30, the appellant and 3 others while charged with robbery,
they committed contempt of court and were charged with the same without being heard.
The court held that, the acused persons were condemned unheard; and that violated the
principle of natural justice that a man should not be condemned unheard.
iii) Sadiki Athumani v. R31, where the appellant was convicted in Primary court. On
appeal in the District court he was not given an opportunity to be heard and judgment was
upheld. It was held that there was violation of the principles of natural justice because the
party was not given an opportunity of being heard.
iv) Amri Juma v. Tanzania Harbour Authority32, employees of the defendants were
dismissed, they appealed to Temeke Concilliation board. When they were outside, the
officials of the defendants held a talk with board members without telling the employees
what transpired inside. The decision was not in favour of the dismissed employees. On
review it was held that there was a situation of bias and the decision of the board was
quashed.

28
[1981] TLR 55.
29
(1984) TLR 304.
30
(1986) TLR 212.
31
(1986) TLR 235.
32
High Court, Dar es Salaam, Miscellanous Civil case No.37 of 1980.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnett, H. (2002). Constitutional & Administrative law (4th Ed). London: CPL.
Maina, C. P (1997). Human Rights in tanzania: selected cases and materials. Finland:
Koln koppe.
Phillips, O.H & Jackson, P. (1987) O. Hood Phillips Constitutional and Administrative
law (7th Ed). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Stevens,I. (1996) Constitutional & Administrative law (3 rd ed). London: Pitman
publishing.
Takwani, C.K. (1998). Lectures on Administrative Law (3 Ed). Lucknow: Eastern Book.