Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Grounds for Challenging Government Actions

Administrative Law 1
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
by (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Course
Date

Administrative Law 2
Administrative Law
Abusu should move to the court to defend himself against the actions taken upon him by
the minister. Such a decision can be challenged in the court through a judicial review. A judicial
review typically is a process in which the decisions made by a particular authoritarian body is
reviewed in the court. The courts have often emphasized that only those authorized to take a
particular action against another as contained in the law (Bell, 2017 p.233). In the circumstance
in which an unauthorized person takes action, the courts responds to it by declaring that the
decision which was made is invalid and also that the physical act is unlawful and thus should be
stopped through an order of injunction.
Immigration Act No.10 of 2000
The act lays down the rights of an immigrant from a particular country and this is in
relation to court cases. Just like any other citizen, the immigrants also have certain rights granted
to them which protects them from any form of discrimination. For example, the immigrants can
appeal in a high for decisions which have been taken against them and they must have a
representation to act on their behalf. However the minister of immigration has been granted
certain powers which enables them to remove a non-citizen who has committed criminal offense
and an activity which is detrimental to the security of the country. According to this act such a
person should not be consulted by the minister but instead be deported out of the country.
Further the section of the immigration act applies not withstanding any other of the provisions in
the act.
According to Bradley, Ewing, and Knight (2018 p.100), there are various grounds for
seeking judicial review. Some of the grounds to seek for judicial review may include, non-
consultation with the person who is likely to be affected by the decision made. The other ground

Administrative Law 3
is associated with the acceptance of the courts to prosecute senior government ministers and this
is unlike previously where there was fear to arraign such individuals in the courts. One of the key
remedies pertaining to the case study is on the erosion of limited concept of jurisdiction. The
remedy could be as a result of the breach of natural justice. According to the court of Queen's
Bench, the breach of natural justice occurs when the parties involved are not made aware of their
offenses and also the evidence produced against them. Like in the case, Abusu was not told about
the proceedings, and even the offenses he had committed that would warrant his arrest, and this
is, therefore, a violation of the principles of natural justice (Okpaluba, 2015 p.400). Just like in
the case of Errington v. Minister of Health (1935), the minister was provided with additional
evidence form the local authority to confirm the housing scheme and not from the objectors.
Such an action was considered as a violation of the principles of natural justice.
According to the law, there are certain conditions and things which must be done before
taking a particular action usually of a government nature. Such actions are typically considered
as compulsory, and in the event that they are not adhered to, the action is considered to be
unauthorised.The court can, therefore, stop action through the judicial review. The law,
therefore, prescribes some of the requirements which would indicate that a particular action is
unauthorized (Cohn, 2014 p.23). For example, when a document is filed by an individual who is
not a moral authority to do so, the action is considered to be unauthorised. In the case of R v
Paddington and St. Marylebone Rent Tribunal, Ex parte Bell Properties Ltd [1949], there was an
application made by a particular local authority for the review of the rent of 310 tenancies was
owned by a company. The court made a decision which prevented the tribunal set to decide on
the case, and this was because the applications were to be made by tenants only and not just
several applications by the local authority (French, 2014 p.1).

Administrative Law 4
There is also another requirement that a copy of a document of the arrest should be
provided to the individuals who could be affected by the decisions made. Such a copy is
necessary to enable the individuals to be aware of the case concerning them. In the event that the
copy is not provided to the person, then it is considered that the action was not legal and this is as
illustrated in the following cases;
Howard v. Bodington (1877) 2 PD 203
In the case, there was the issue that the bishop of the Church of England was to be issued
with a copy of the document within 21 days. However, that did not happen. The judge on his
ruling said that he had no jurisdiction and this was because the complainant had already been
provided with the document after the expected time.
R v Lancashire Justices (1857)
In the case, the legislation of England allowed that in the event that the various justices had given
approval for the public highway to remain closed, then there would be a possibility of appealing
such a decision in ten days' notice to the local authorities and thereafter to the Quarter Sessions.
However, the Quarter Session made a decision even before the ten-day notice, and this was
against the law.
There is another requirement that the individual who is likely to be impacted by the
action be consulted before a particular action is taken against him or her. The written law
requires that a public official who takes an action which is governmental must consult the
individual who is likely to be affected by the action. Additionally, the individual must be
provided with adequate information about the issue upon which legal action will be taken against
him or her (Cooper, 2017 p.45). The significance of this requirement is that it will enable the
person likely to be affected to adjust his or her affairs appropriately when a particular action is