Damage modes in sandwich structures 29

The form of the old writ was that of a royal demand to be informed (certiorari) of some matter, and in early times it was used for many different purposes. It became a

general remedy to bring up for review in the Court of King's Bench any decision or order of an inferior tribunal or administrative body. Its great period of development as a means of controlling administrative authorities and tribunals began in the latter half of the seventeenth century

There was also the problem of controlling special statutory bodies, which had begun to make their appearance. The Court of King's Bench addressed itself to these tasks, and became almost the only coordinating authority until the modern system of local

102

government was devised in the nineteenth century. The most useful instruments which the Court found ready to hand were the prerogative writs. But not unnaturally

the control exercised was strictly legal, and no longer political. Certiorari would issue to call up the records of justices of the peace and commissioners for examination in the King's Bench and for quashing if any legal defect was found. At first there was much quashing for defects of form on the record, i.e. for error on the face. Later, as the doctrine of ultra vires developed, that became the dominant principle of control.

Certiorari is a prerogative order which enables a superior court or tribunal to call upon

an inferior court or tribunal to certify the record upon which an inferior court or administrative tribunal backs its decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial nature. It lies

to quash inferior proceeding or decision tainted by jurisdiction defects or to invalidate

decisions or action taken in breach of natural justice or to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The purpose is to enable the superior court to review that record in order to adjudge the legality of the decision based on it. The

underlying policy is that the inferior courts or tribunals must keep strictly within the defined jurisdiction.

On the question whether certiorari will lei when other remedies are available, the Court per Ademola, C.J.F. in The Queen v. District Officer and Ors(1961) 2 NSCC 35

at 39held inter- alia that certiorari would not normally, except upon application of the

Attorney-General, lie when other remedies are available. It is also noteworthy that though certiorari is discretionary, it will nevertheless be granted ―ex debitojustitiae‖

to quash proceedings which the Court has power to quash, where it is shown that the

Court below has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. It has been held by Lord Green, M.R. in R. v. Stafford Justices ex parte Stafford Corporation (1940) 2 K.B. 33 C.A at pg 44that unless there is something in the circumstances of a

case which makes it right to refuse the relief sought, the Court will grant it, and that is the way in which the Court will and must on ordinary principle exercise its discretion.

GROUNDS OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI:

The writ of certiorari can be issued on the following grounds:

(1) Want of jurisdiction, which includes the following:

(a) Excess of jurisdiction.

(b) Abuse of jurisdiction.

(c) Absence of jurisdiction.

103

(2) Violation of Natural justice.

(3) Fraud.

(4) Error on the face of records.

(1) Want of jurisdiction: This may arise from.

(1) The nature of subject matter.

(2) From the abuse of some essential preliminary, or

(3) Upon the existence of some facts collateral to the actual matter, which the Court has to try, and which is the conditions precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by it.It may be added that jurisdiction also depends on

(4) The character and constitution of the tribunal. The Court does not interfere in the

cases where there is a pure exercise of discretion, and which is not arbitrary if it is done in good faith. They do not ignore the legislative intention in the statute which

might give a wide aptitude of powers to the administrative authority or the social needs, which demand the bestowal of some wider jurisdiction, or the historical circumstances under which a certain tribunal got exclusive jurisdiction of a particular

subject-matter.

2) Violation of Natural Justice The next ground for the issue of writ of certiorari is the violation of natural justice.

(3) Fraud

The superior Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders of convictions made by inferior tribunals if they have been procured by fraud or collusion a jurisdiction that now exercised by the issue of certiorari to quash Where fraud is alleged, the Court will decline to quash unless it is satisfied that the fraud was clear

and manifest and was instrumental in procuring the order impugned.

(4) Error of law apparent on the face of record.

An error in decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceeding.

Necessary conditions or the issue of the Writ: When anybody persons (a) Having legal authority.

(b) To determine questions affecting rights of subjects, (c) Having duty to act judicially,

104

(d) Acts in excess of their legal authority, writ of certiorari may be issued. Unless all these conditions are satisfied, mere inconvenience or absence of other remedy does not create a right to certiorari.

3.3 UTILITY OF THE DOCTRINE