Judicial Functions: Finality of Decisions Made by Administrative Tribunals
DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF FINALITY OF DECISIONS MADE BY ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN EXERCISE OF THEIR JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.
AUTHOR: KATALILO JOY
INTRODUCTION
This paper is aimed at discussing the finality of decisions made by administrative tribunals in exercise of their judicial functions. The discussion will focus on the case R v Medical Appeals Tribunal Ex Parte Gilmore and other cases.
Governments exist to provide guidance to its people. In fulfilling this important duty, governments make decisions that affect the members of society. The government makes decision through its various agencies. These agencies are given powers which fall under the legislature and the judiciary. The legislative powers of the agency gives it authority to make laws such as regulations, rules or procedures while the judicial powers give it the powers to adjudicate over contested cases within its area of jurisdiction.
Judicial review emanates from dissatisfaction of the party to whom the judicial action of the agency affects. Judicial review is thus described as a procedure whereby, a court examines the exercise of a delegated discretionary decision- making power, in order to ensure that the power has been properly exercised for its lawful purpose. There is no law governing judicial review in Zambia. Judicial review thus exists in Zambia under the tutelage of the law and practice, for the time being, existing in the High Court of Justice of England. This is made possible by Section 10 of the High Court Act, Chapter 27 of the laws of Zambia which states that
“The jurisdiction vested in the Court shall, as regards practice and procedure, be exercised in the manner provided by this Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, or by any other written law, or by such rules, order or directions of the Court as may be made under this Act, or the said Code, or such written law, and in default thereof in substantial conformity with the law and
AUTHOR: KATALILO JOY
INTRODUCTION
This paper is aimed at discussing the finality of decisions made by administrative tribunals in exercise of their judicial functions. The discussion will focus on the case R v Medical Appeals Tribunal Ex Parte Gilmore and other cases.
Governments exist to provide guidance to its people. In fulfilling this important duty, governments make decisions that affect the members of society. The government makes decision through its various agencies. These agencies are given powers which fall under the legislature and the judiciary. The legislative powers of the agency gives it authority to make laws such as regulations, rules or procedures while the judicial powers give it the powers to adjudicate over contested cases within its area of jurisdiction.
Judicial review emanates from dissatisfaction of the party to whom the judicial action of the agency affects. Judicial review is thus described as a procedure whereby, a court examines the exercise of a delegated discretionary decision- making power, in order to ensure that the power has been properly exercised for its lawful purpose. There is no law governing judicial review in Zambia. Judicial review thus exists in Zambia under the tutelage of the law and practice, for the time being, existing in the High Court of Justice of England. This is made possible by Section 10 of the High Court Act, Chapter 27 of the laws of Zambia which states that
“The jurisdiction vested in the Court shall, as regards practice and procedure, be exercised in the manner provided by this Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, or by any other written law, or by such rules, order or directions of the Court as may be made under this Act, or the said Code, or such written law, and in default thereof in substantial conformity with the law and