No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
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.
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