PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Mandamus is a high prerogative writ to secure performance of a public duty; it is discretionary, and the court may refuse it if it would serve no useful purpose or if the duty can no longer be carried out.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Fawehinmi v. IGP & Ors (2002) NLC-2012000(SC) at p. 11; Paras A–D.
"Mandamus is a high prerogative writ which lies to secure the performance of a public duty, in the performance of which the applicant has a sufficient legal interest. It gives a command that a duty or function of a public nature, which normally, though not necessarily, is imposed by statute but is neglected or refused to be done after due demand, be done. If there is a discretion in the performance of the duty, the court has the power to examine whether the discretion to refuse to act has been properly exercised. In the exercise of that power, the court will not lightly overrule the discretion just because it considers it desirable that the duty be performed. Even if it is found that the discretion was not properly exercised or that there was in fact no discretion at all in the matter, the court may still exercise its own discretion not to order mandamus on the general ground that the court would make no order in vain which could no longer be carried out; or on the other ground of expediency that it would serve no useful purpose even if the order were implemented."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Mandamus is a discretionary remedy, not a right. The court may refuse it even if a public duty has not been performed. Grounds for refusal include: (1) the order would be in vain (cannot be carried out); (2) it would serve no useful purpose; (3) expediency. The court examines whether the respondent properly exercised discretion. The court will not lightly overrule discretionary decisions. The principle ensures that mandamus is not granted where it would be futile. The remedy is discretionary even after finding non-performance. The rule applies to all applications for mandamus. The applicant must show that the order would be effective and useful. The court will not compel a futile act.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE