ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION AND THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

Adjudication:

has been defined as an act of making an official decision about who is right in a

Disagreement between two groups or organisation. It can also be defined as the agency process for
issuing an order which resolves particular rights or duties.

Though section 6(1) and (2) provides for the establishment of regular courts at the federal and state
levels, however section 36(1) makes it clear that other bodies may adjudicate on matters and this is
where administrative adjudication comes in. Read s36

Administrative Adjudication is the process by which an Administrative Agency issues an order, such
order being affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form.

Most formal proceedings before an administrative agency follow the process of either rule making or
adjudication.

Rulemaking formulates policy by setting rules for the future conduct of persons governed by that
agency. Eg CBN to regulate Bank ( a typical example is the CBN rules on lending which must be
followed by banks). NAFDAC for the regulation of consumable products. Etc.

Adjudication applies a dispute resolution aspect of administrative action. E, Election tribunal.

Question: Why is Administrative adjudication required?

Administrative adjudications have been established in the main, to resolve:

• disputes between a private citizen and a government department, such as claims to social security
benefits; • disputes which require the application of specialised knowledge or expertise, such as the
assessment of compensation following the compulsory purchase of land; and • other disputes which
by their nature or quantity are considered unsuitable for the ordinary courts, such as immigration
appeals.

The main justification for administrative adjudication may be identified as: • the relief of congestion
in the ordinary courts of law (the courts could not cope with the case-load that is now borne by
tribunals, employment tribunals etc.); • the provision of a speedier and cheaper procedure than that
afforded by the ordinary courts (tribunals avoid the formality of the ordinary courts); and • the
desire to have specific issues dealt with by persons with an intimate knowledge and experience of
the problems involved (which a court with a wide general jurisdiction might not acquire).

Advantages of administrative adjudication (a) Quick with no long waits for the case to be heard and
it is dealt with speedily; (b) Cheap, as no fees are charged; (c) Staffed by experts who specialise in
particular areas; (d) Characterised by an informal atmosphere and procedure; (e) Allowed not to
follow its own precedents, although tribunals do have to follow court precedents. F) burden of
courts lessened. G) it fixes standards

Administrative procedures pg214

Classes of Adjudicative Bodies

 1. Statutory Tribunal:

DEFINE TRIBUNAL

A tribunal is a body with judicial or quasi-judicial functions usually set up by government under
statute and existing outside the hierarchy of the regular court system to

 Investigate matters of public importance or

 To hear and determine cases, matters or claims of a particular kind between parties whether such
parties be persons, bodies or government.

Don’t forget the definition in the case of In the case of Onuoha V Okafor.

A tribunal is usually appointed by government pursuant to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act or its
equivalent laws in the state or under specific status enacted for that purpose.

It may consist of one person sitting alone as the tribunal, such as a sole commissioners or a body of
persons, such as a panel of judges. In some cases tribunals are chaired by a Judge of the High Court,
Magistrate or Legal Practitioners sitting alone or with such other number of persons or assessors
who represent special interest or are persons with professional or technical knowledge in the
matters the tribunal, inquiry, panel or commission is set up to investigate or determine. A tribunal is
usually subject to: 1) The general law of the land, 2) The Statutes, or instrument guiding its
jurisdiction or terms of reference; and 3) The rules of natural justice and fair hearing.

Generally, the court does not interfere with the standards of professional conduct, set by a
professional body and enforced by a properly constituted disciplinary tribunal except where the
tribunal goes contrary to the rules established for it or contrary to rules of natural justice.

the statutes establishing a tribunal may provide that all appeals from the decision of the tribunal
shall lie directly to the Court of Appeal especially where the tribunal is the equivalent of a High Court
in which case, the Court of Appeal is the relevant court to review the findings of such tribunal

Statutory administrative tribunals –as their name suggests are judicial bodies created by statutes
for the purpose of adjudication. One common thread that runs through all statutory administrative
tribunals is that they are created by statutes and are usually executive bodies. Thus their
memberships, appointments and administration are all under the purview of the executive arm of
the government. Although some of the tribunals may have judges as their members, they may still
be categorised as executive bodies. A good example includes the Code of Conduct Bureau
established under the 1999 Constitution and Election Tribunals.

WHAT ARE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF STATUTORY TRIBUNALS?

Industrial Arbitration Panel

Recovery of public properties tribunal

2. Autonomy bodies are independent tribunals established under chartered professional and
self-governing bodies which are usually outside the mainstream government set up.
 autonomous types of administrative adjudication are set by charted professional bodies
pursuant to the extant laws that established or chartered the professional bodies. Eg

A good example of autonomous tribunal is the Institute of Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria
(CITN) Disciplinary Tribunal. The Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria Act sets up the
Disciplinary Tribunal and provides that the duty of considering and determining any case of an
alleged professional misconduct of member of the Institute shall lie with the Chartered Institute of
Taxation of Nigeria Disciplinary Tribunal otherwise known as the “The Tribunal” as set up in
accordance with the provision of the Act. The function of these autonomous bodies is to meet the
regulatory needs within the profession or industry concerned.

OTHER EXAMPLES

Medical and Dental practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal

Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal

Registered Engineers Disciplinary Tribunal etc.

Alakija v Medical Disciplinary Committee; Olaye v Chairman, Medical and Dental Practitioner
Disciplinary Tribunal

3. Other bodies: Other adjudicatory bodies and are difficult to categorize therefore are
grouped together.

As provided by statute, their function are mainly administrative or executive (they make some
policies) but not judicial in nature but every now and again, they make administrative decisions.

The President, Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, director Generals etc

There is also Judicial Enquiries

An enquiry is a body usually set up to do fact finding and report back to government or other
authority which established it. It maybe called a panel, commission of enquiry, or some other name.
It is practically a person or group of persons who are chosen to discover information about a
problem, probe, or examine the reason why a problem exists.

formal judicial inquiries are formal inquiries that are basically judicial or quasi-judicial in nature. It
statutorily provided for by the Tribunal of Inquiry Act. The law empowers the President to, whenever
he deems it desirable by instrument under his hand constitute one or more persons to inquire into
any matter or thing or into the conduct or affairs of any person in respect of which in his opinion an
inquiry would be for the public welfare; and the proper authority may by the same instrument or by
an order appoint a secretary to the tribunal who shall perform such duties as the members shall
prescribe.

How is a Tribunal different or similar as the case may be to a judicial inquiry?

1. They are both required to comply with the rules of fair hearing and natural justice, by giving
the persons that appear before them the opportunity to speak and fully present their case.
 The case of Ekpo v Calabar Local Government Council, The court held that the panel is
entitled to determine its own procedure as long as it acts fairly and in accordance with the
rules of natural justice.
2. Parties are entitled to legal representation during a tribunal or inquiry.
3. Tribunal is a special court outside the court system set up to try a particular matter. Here
procedures are usually formal and legalistic and take place in open court or open venue just
like regular court proceedings ; Inquiry is set up to do fact finding and report back, as the
name implies, to inquiry. Here, proceedings are usually less formal and more publicised.
4. Tribunals usually reach decisions after trials and parties have a right to appeal. After an
inquiry, the panel merely submits their findings and recommendations to the government or
the body that established it. The report may or may not be implemented.
5. Both tribunals and enquiries are judicial bodies which decide questions that affect the rights
and obligations of persons.

Control of Administrative adjudication

Question: Analyze the various means of controlling administrative agencies.

Control is necessary to ensure against misuse or abuse. This is because administrative

powers are prone to abuse and can easily become arbitrary if unchecked.
Control of administrative adjudication is mostly judicial, through the law makers and the
court however, from time to time the legislative and executive arms may also exercise
control over administrative adjudicatory bodies.

Legislative control
The legislative may exercise control over Administrative Adjudication through a number o
ways;
(a) Amending the law setting up the administrative agency with a view to making it more
effective and responsive to the demands of the people;
(b) Repealing the law establishing such agency and, ipso facto, abolishing the agency; and so
on

Executive Control
(a) Issuing general or specific directives regarding the way administrative agencies should
carry out their duties.
(b) Requiring the agency to submit its proposed decision, rules, regulations, budget, etc, for
examination or vetting before implementation.
(c) Directing relevant agencies such as the Police, Ministry of Justice, ICPC, EFCC, Code of
Conduct Bureau, etc, to initiate criminal proceedings or to prosecute erring officials such as
those accused of corruption and money laundering.

However, These mode of control is not as common as Judicial control or review.

Judicial Control/ Judicial Review

The judiciary exercises its checks over agencies, in their rulemaking through what is known
as judicial review. This is when the court reviews the findings of the tribunal. The High courts
and other superior courts have the power to do this because they are superior to a tribunal.
Arubo v Aiyeleru.
 To exercise its power, the high court may issue an order of prohibition to stop a tribunal
from entertaining a matter, or issue an order certiorari to review the decision of a tribunal.
An action may be filed in Court by any person who is affected by the rule of an
administrative on the ground that the rule is invalid or unreasonable in the circumstances.

Question: When is a judicial review application necessary?

A court may intervene where

1. The tribunal lacks the judicial power to entertain a matter in order words, where the
tribunal lacks jurisdiction
2. Also where the tribunal acts ultra Vires, ie to act beyond its power.
3. Where the tribunal fails to observe the principles of natural justice and fair hearing
4. Where a party has a right of Appeal and decides to exercise its right
5. A party must have locus standi to apply

Appeal
An appeal challenges the outcome of a particular decision made by a tribunal or court. Generally, a
person who is a party to the matter or aggrieved by the decision can lodge an appeal. Appeals can be
by right or discretionary. Where the appeal is discretionary, an application must address why the
appeal should be allowed and the grounds for appeal. Leave to appeal will generally be granted at the
Court of Appeal level where the applicant has “a real prospect for success”.
The appeal court will consider the submissions and decide on one of the following outcomes:
1. Affirm the lower court decision;
2. Modify the lower court decision – where the appellate court agrees in part with the lower court
decision; or
3. Reverse the lower court decision which includes setting aside orders made by the lower court and
making new orders.

While an appeal focuses on whether the decision itself is correct or incorrect, judicial review
focuses on whether the decision maker conformed with statutory or common law powers
conferred on the decision maker. In a judicial review the judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision
or action made by the tribunal.

Judicial review is an application for the court to determine whether an official action conforms
with the power given. The judicial review process scrutinises the decision making process and
analyses whether or not the decision was made within power.

Examples of when an application for judicial review might be made is where there is some
evidence the entity/decision maker granted with the public power has:
· breached the limits placed on the grant of that power;
· done something more than was authorised;
· done something authorised in an unauthorised way; or
· not done something when there was a duty to act.

Question: What is the relevance of the right to fair hearing in relation to Administrative
Adjudication.