Administrative Prerogative Writs and Orders

MANDAMUS

An order of mandamus is available to compel the performance of a public duty in which the person applying for mandamus has sufficiently interest. As noted by Edigbe JSC in Shitta-bey v Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC p. 80, the order of mandamus only issues to a person or Corporation inquiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specify which pertains to his or her office which is the nature of a public duty. The public duty in question must be imposed upon the person against whom the order is sought.

In the case of Lanyanju v Araoye (1959)4 FSC p.154 it was held by the court that the duty under customary law can also be enforced by order of mandamus. In the case of Shitta-bey v Federal Public Service Commission (Supra), where it was held that the order of mandamus was appropriate to compel the commission to reinstate the applicant into the Civil Service from which he was compulsorily retired.

It should be noted that an order of mandamus cannot be applied in situations of discretion or in situations where what is compelled of a party to do is impossible to do or that it will be the contravention of the law or where there is an alternative specific remedy at law which is not less convenient or beneficial.

However, it does appear in recent time that an order of mandamus may be issued to compel the exercise of discretion from public officers. See the case of Ulegede v Commissioner for agriculture, Benue State (1996)8 NWLR p.437

INJUNCTION

An injunction is an order of the court prohibiting a person or body from doing a specific thing. Injunction can either be preventive, prohibitive or compulsive. Thus injunction is an order which forbids or restrains the carrying out of some specific acts. It can also be issued against anybody be it a private entity, individual government or any public office or public authority.

The basic types of injunction are: interim injunction, interlocutory injunction and perpetual injunction.

OMBUDSMAN

An ombudsman is an independent and non partisan public agency that receives and investigates complaints from members of the public for administrative wrongs of public authorities. Its functions is to investigate complaints and seek a way of redressing the wrong tendered without recourse for adjudication.

Thus, ombudsman is an official body to which people may come with grievances against government administrative authorities for it to peacefully resolve the issue and obtain remedy for it.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

A declaration of right is also known as a declaratory judgement. This is the pronouncement made by the court of competent jurisdiction of the legal obligations and rights of the parties in a suit without making a consequential order. It is a pronouncement that one party is right and the other wrong. Whether or not reliefs are given after a declaratory judgement by  the court or not, it is binding. A citizen may feel aggrieved and may seek a declaration of his rights by the Court. See the case of Shitta-bey v Federal Public Service Commission.

The remedy of declaration of rights will apply  on the following grounds:

      a)    That the act of the public authority is invalid.

      b)   For a declaration of rights in the circumstance.

      c)    For reliefs and consequential orders that has the effect of enforcing the declaratory judgements or orders.

See the case of Shugaba v Minister of Internal Affairs (1981)2 NCLR p.459 and the case of Tai Solarin v Inspector General of Police (1993)6 NWLR pt 300 p. 4-6   

AWARD OF DAMAGES

Damages are injuries suffered by a person by reason of the breach of his rights by another person. The award of damages is more or less a monetary compensation which the courts order the defendant to explain to the plaintiff as reasonable compensation of the act of the defendant which caused injury to the plaintiff. Section 35 (6) CFRN provides that any person who is unlawfully detained or arrested shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate body or person and in this section, the appropriate person means authority specify by law. See the case of Shugaba v Minister of Internal Affairs (supra) where the sum of N50, 000 was awarded to the plaintiff for assault and unlawful deportation and the violation of the plaintiff’s right to personal liberty.

An applicant may see the Court for two kinds of damages namely; Special damages and General damages. Special damages are that which the applicant must proof and plead. It cannot be presumed by the Court. General damages on the other hand are such that the Court presumes have resulted from the harm suffered by the plaintiff which the plaintiff did not specifically plead. It is awarded for injuries and loss that are incapable of monetary qualification. Example of such injuries include: battery, assault,  loss of liberty by means of detention etc. See the case of Dele Giwa v Inspector General of Police (unreported).

HARBEAS CORPUS

The writ of harbeas corpus is one of the prerogative ways by which the detention of a person by an executive authority may be challenged in the High Court is made for the issuance of harbeas corpus; the court orders the release of the person detained in custody. It is of constitutional importance, because it is the writ that secures and enforces the fundamental human rights contained in chapter four of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. See the case of Agbaje v Commissioner of Police(1969) 1 NMLR. 176 at 180 where the Court of Appeal held that the writ of harbeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release and unlawful or unjustifiable detention, whether in prison custody or private custody.

Harbeas corpus is a review and not an appeal, which challenges the legality of a detention. It will apply where the detention is ultra vires the person or authority that ordered it. The power of the High Court to issue this writ is territorially limited to the area where the court exercises jurisdiction. The writ will therefore not issue from a High Court of one jurisdiction demanding compliance by the High Court of a different jurisdiction.

PROHIBITION AND CERTIORARI

These two reliefs are more or less, the opposite of the other and they are resulted to in order to control the various courts and statutory Tribunals.

In prohibition, applicant will be seeking to restrain the administrative body from carrying out an act which otherwise will be unlawful and illegal. Prohibition is concerned on what is to happen. Remedies are available against bodies having the powers to determine questions affecting rights of subjects.

While on the other hand, the order of Certiorari relates to acts which have already been concluded. Certiorari is employ to quash the decision of an inferior court during excess of jurisdiction.

There are four grounds on which an order of Certiorari and Prohibition may be granted, these are:

            a)      Lack of jurisdiction by adjudicating body.

            b)      Breach of the rules of natural justice.

            c)       Error of law on the face of record.

            d)      That the decision has been obtained by fraud or collusion.

Click to Save or and to Print this Article for free