LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial Review — Principles Applicable — Distinction from Appeal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In judicial review, the court must not stray into appellate jurisdiction. The court's power is to see whether the public body has contravened the law by acting in excess of its powers. The court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own opinion for that of the public body. What matters is legality, not correctness.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in The Governor of Oyo State v. Oba Ololade Folayan (1995) NLC-2561989(SC) at pp. 42–43; Paras. D–A.
"In a judicial review, the court must not stray into the realms of appellate jurisdiction for that would involve the court in a wrongful usurpation of power. The power of the court as a reviewing tribunal is to see whether the public body have contravened the law by action in excess of the powers which parliament has confided in them. The court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own opinion for that of the public body whose decision is being reviewed. What matters is legality and not correctness of the decision."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Judicial review is not an appeal. The court reviews legality, not correctness. The court cannot substitute its opinion. The principle applies to all judicial review applications. The court examines whether the public body acted within its powers. The rule prevents the court from usurping administrative functions. The court will not interfere with a decision that is lawful, even if wrong. The principle respects the separation of powers.