LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Mandamus — Requirement of Proper Case — Evidence Essential
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There cannot be a proper case for mandamus if an essential ingredient forming the background to the public duty is not supported by evidence; absence of such evidence is enough to terminate the proceedings.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Fawehinmi v. IGP & Ors (2002) NLC-2012000(SC) at p. 25; Paras A–E.
"There cannot be a proper case previously shown if an essential ingredient forming the background to the facts and circumstances imposing a public duty upon a person alleged to have failed to perform that duty, is not supported by evidence. In my view, the absence of the evidence intended by exhibits GF1, GF2 and GF3 was enough to terminate these proceedings, or, at any rate, enough to base a discretion not to order mandamus as there was nothing to show that the allegations of crime were real and to hold therefore that Governor Tinubu should not, or need not, be investigated."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An applicant for mandamus must adduce evidence supporting the essential facts. Mere allegations are insufficient. Absence of evidence for essential ingredients is fatal. The court may terminate the proceedings or exercise discretion to refuse mandamus. The principle ensures that mandamus is not granted on speculative grounds. The applicant bears the burden of proof. The court will not compel performance of a duty based on unsubstantiated allegations. The rule applies to all applications for mandamus. The respondent is entitled to know the factual basis. The court will examine whether there is a proper case shown. The principle protects public officials from being compelled to act on baseless allegations.