LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction of Court – Ouster Clauses Inconsistent with Constitutional Provisions
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
As sections attempting to oust jurisdiction are void (being inconsistent with the Constitution), the court's jurisdiction is not ousted thereby, particularly where the cause of action arose after the Constitution came into force.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The position then is that as sections 22(4) and 32 of the Law are void, the court's jurisdiction is not ousted thereby particularly so that the cause of action arose in 1985."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When ouster provisions are void (due to constitutional inconsistency), they have no legal effect—courts retain full jurisdiction. This is particularly clear where: the cause of action arose after the Constitution came into force, making constitutional provisions clearly applicable. The principle establishes: void ouster clauses cannot exclude jurisdiction; courts should ignore such provisions and proceed to determine cases; parties cannot rely on void provisions to prevent judicial review. This protects constitutional access to courts and judicial power. The timing element (cause of action arising post-Constitution) strengthens the conclusion—there’s no argument that the ouster provision predated the Constitution. However, even for pre-Constitution causes of action, void ouster clauses typically cannot exclude jurisdiction. This ensures constitutional rights to judicial access are not undermined by inconsistent statutory provisions.