By: Kachana Katazo
9th, March, 2024
INTRODUCTION
The holding in the case of Dr.
Ludwig Sondashi v Attorney-General (2000) ZR 123 (SC) has several
implications regarding the role of the court in relation to the executive and
the requirement for exhaustion of remedies in judicial review. Firstly, the
holding emphasizes the importance of legislative intent in determining the
boundaries of executive powers. if the legislature has clearly and explicitly
assigned certain matters exclusively to the executive branch, the court has no
role in interfering with or reviewing those decisions. Let's discuss these implications:
BRIEF
FACTS
By
originating summons the appellant, Dr. Sondashi; applied to the High Court to
seek a declaration that the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs rejecting
his application to operate a firearms dealer’s business at Stand No. 942
Solwezi, North Western Province, was contrary to Sections 26(2) and 27(3) of
the Firearms Act, Cap 110, of the Laws of Zambia and thus null and void. The
High Court rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that Section
12(7) had ousted the Jurisdiction of the Court as it provided that the
minister’s decision is not challengeable in any court of law. The appellant
appealed.
HOLDING
i) In terms
of Section 26(2) of the Firearms Act, Cap 110, of the Laws of Zambia, the
Registrar of Firearms has powers vested in him to either register an applicant
or refuse to register an applicant without giving any reason for such refusal.
However, the proviso to Section 26(2) aforesaid circumscribes the discretion of
the Registrar.
(ii)
Where
the legislature has decided that certain matters should be solely for the
executive, the court has no role to play as such issues contain no legal issues
to be resolved.
(iii)
It
is a requirement in Judicial review that all available remedies must be exhausted
before applying for prerogative writs.
1. Separation of powers: The holding in this case reinforces
the principle of separation of powers, particularly the division between the
legislative and executive branches of government. It acknowledges that certain
matters have been exclusively entrusted to the executive by the legislature,
and the court should respect these boundaries and refrain from interfering in
purely executive functions.
2. Limitations on judicial power: The decision highlights the limits
of the court's jurisdiction in certain cases. It suggests that if the
legislature has clearly delegated a certain matter solely to the executive, the
court should not involve itself in resolving legal issues related to that matter.
This implies that the court must exercise restraint and avoid overstepping its
authority.
3. Judicial review and remedies: The holding emphasizes the
importance of exhausting all available remedies before seeking prerogative
writs, such as judicial review. This requirement ensures that parties have
pursued all other avenues for relief or resolution before turning to the court.
In doing so, it promotes the principles of procedural fairness and efficiency
in the legal system.
4. Determining whether legal issues are
involved: The case
suggests that the court should carefully analyze whether a particular issue or
matter involves any legal questions before deciding to exercise judicial
review. If the court finds that the matter solely falls within the executive's
jurisdiction and does not give rise to legal issues, it should refrain from
intervening.
5. Clarification of court's role in relation to the executive: The holding clarifies that the court's role in matters exclusively within the executive's domain is limited. It establishes that the judiciary should respect the separation of powers and only intervene when there are legal issues to be resolved or when the executive exceeds its lawful authority.
CONCLUSION
The holding in this case reinforces the
importance of understanding the respective roles of the judiciary and the
executive, and the need to respect the boundaries established by the
legislature. It underscores the requirement for parties to exhaust all other
remedies before turning to the court and highlights the limited scope of
judicial intervention in matters solely entrusted to the executive.
This Article is Brought to you by:
LEGAL AID INITIATIVE
(Bringing the Law to Your Comfort)
About the Author:
Kachana Katazo is a third year student at the University of Zambia and serving as a researcher at Legal Aid Initiative.