Question
INTRODUCTION
This assignment will examine the jurisdiction of the Zambian courts to judicially review a decision made by the Minister of Local Government, specifically in light of a statutory provision that purports to make the Minister's decision "final and not subject to review by any court or authority in Zambia." The scenario involves Bupe, whose application for the renewal of his market stall licence has been refused by both the Council and the Minister on appeal. Bupe now seeks to challenge the Minister's decision through judicial review. This analysis will explore the relevant legal principles, the interpretation of ouster clauses, and the likely approach of the Zambian courts, citing appropriate authorities to support the arguments.
The issue is to determine whether or not the courts of law in Zambia have jurisdiction over a decision made by the Minister of local government over the renewal of a market stall license. To determine whether or not any person, whose license has been denied by both the council and the Minister of local government, may bring judicial review against the minister. To determine whether or not the provision in the Act of parliament which stated that the minister’s decision in relation to renewal of a market stall license was final and not subject to review by any courts or authority was consistent with the constitution of Zambia.
The high court of Zambia has original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. This is provided for in article 134 of the constitution of Zambia amendment Act 2016. The high court being given these powers by the constitution which is the supreme law of the country any other law needs to be consistent with it, this is because all acts of parliament derive their powers from the constitution. The high court shall be a superior court of record, and, in addition to any other jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and by this or any other written law, shall, within the limits and subject as in this Act mentioned, possess and exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authorities vested in the high court of justice in England. This is provided for in part IV Cap 1. Of the High court Act.
The constitution of Zambia clearly stipulates in article 1 that the constitution of Zambia is the supreme law of the Republic of Zambia and any other written law, customary law and customary practice that is inconsistent with it is void to the extent of its inconsistent. This can be seen in the case of Christine Mulundika and 7 others V The people. The appellant rights challenged the Constitutionality of a certain provision of the public order Act Cap 104, especially section 5(4) the challenge followed on the fundamental freedoms and rights guaranteed by article 20 and 21 of the constitution. A subsidiary challenge related to the exemption of certain office holders from the need to obtain a permit. It was held that section 5(4) of the public order Act cap 104 contravenes article 20 and 21 of the constitution and it is null and void. And the exemption guaranteed to certain office holders does not fall under the categories listed in the constitution. The constitution also states that it shall bind to all persons in Zambia, state organs and state institutions. From this provision it can clearly be seen that the provision in the Act of parliament which stated that the decision made by the minister of local government on the renewal of a market stall license shall be final and not subject to review was unconstitutional as the laws in the constitution is binding to all persons. This can also be seen in the case of The Attorney General V Roy Clark where the high court rejected a government attempt to depot a British journalist according to Article 28(2) of the immigration and deportation Act. This was later appealed in the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court set aside the decision to depot Clarke because at the satirical article on the basis that the decision was unreasonable but did not accept the article fell within the protection given to freedom of expression by the constitution.
To mention that judicial review is aimed at reviewing whether the decision made by a public body or a public officer is consistent with the law and whether such necessary procedure was adhered to. The appellant was eligible to proceed with judicial proceedings against the Minister of Local government and the high court of Zambia has adjudication over this matter this is because the high court is granted unlimited and original jurisdiction by the constitution and this cannot be violated by any Act of Parliament. This makes the provision in the Act to be void and not binding on anyone. When the plaintiff request to renew his market license was denied he was free to proceed with judicial review against the Minister of Local government so to be advised on the reason his license was not renewed since the minister falls under the category of those subject to judicial review. And he can decide to start the proceedings in the high court this is because the high court has unlimited and original jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters. In the case of Chilufya v City Council of Kitwe held that a court which terminates a trading license of a person without reasonable ground and a fair hearing violates the constitutional right of such a person. Judicial reviews are powers of the court to review a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function. Judicial review was created after a formulation of the welfare state which increases the likelihood of private citizen’s activities conflicting with the governmental exercise of power. The focus of courts in judicial review is on the decision-making process to enforce and recognize the discretionary powers granted to regulatory bodies in carrying out their mandates. Judicial review should not be in the case where an individual is not satisfied with the merits of the decision and wants the courts to satisfy their whims. This view can be seen in the case of Fredrick Chiluba V Attorney General. The purpose of judicial review is aimed at fair treatment by the authority constituted by law rather that the application of opinion of the judiciary or individual judges. This is because authority constituted by law is objective compared to the subjective opinion of a judge who might be influenced by various social agents that might lead to unfair treatment. Article 18(1) of the constitution of Zambia provides that every person has the right to fair hearing in all courts thus also as held in the case Fredrick Chiluba v Attorney General that “The function of the court is to see the lawful authority is not abused by unfair treatment.
RECONSTRUCT THIS ASSISNMENT IN SIMPLER ENGLISH
This assignment will examine the jurisdiction of the Zambian courts to judicially review a decision made by the Minister of Local Government, specifically in light of a statutory provision that purports to make the Minister's decision "final and not subject to review by any court or authority in Zambia." The scenario involves Bupe, whose application for the renewal of his market stall licence has been refused by both the Council and the Minister on appeal. Bupe now seeks to challenge the Minister's decision through judicial review. This analysis will explore the relevant legal principles, the interpretation of ouster clauses, and the likely approach of the Zambian courts, citing appropriate authorities to support the arguments.
The issue is to determine whether or not the courts of law in Zambia have jurisdiction over a decision made by the Minister of local government over the renewal of a market stall license. To determine whether or not any person, whose license has been denied by both the council and the Minister of local government, may bring judicial review against the minister. To determine whether or not the provision in the Act of parliament which stated that the minister’s decision in relation to renewal of a market stall license was final and not subject to review by any courts or authority was consistent with the constitution of Zambia.
The high court of Zambia has original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. This is provided for in article 134 of the constitution of Zambia amendment Act 2016. The high court being given these powers by the constitution which is the supreme law of the country any other law needs to be consistent with it, this is because all acts of parliament derive their powers from the constitution. The high court shall be a superior court of record, and, in addition to any other jurisdiction conferred by the constitution and by this or any other written law, shall, within the limits and subject as in this Act mentioned, possess and exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authorities vested in the high court of justice in England. This is provided for in part IV Cap 1. Of the High court Act.
The constitution of Zambia clearly stipulates in article 1 that the constitution of Zambia is the supreme law of the Republic of Zambia and any other written law, customary law and customary practice that is inconsistent with it is void to the extent of its inconsistent. This can be seen in the case of Christine Mulundika and 7 others V The people. The appellant rights challenged the Constitutionality of a certain provision of the public order Act Cap 104, especially section 5(4) the challenge followed on the fundamental freedoms and rights guaranteed by article 20 and 21 of the constitution. A subsidiary challenge related to the exemption of certain office holders from the need to obtain a permit. It was held that section 5(4) of the public order Act cap 104 contravenes article 20 and 21 of the constitution and it is null and void. And the exemption guaranteed to certain office holders does not fall under the categories listed in the constitution. The constitution also states that it shall bind to all persons in Zambia, state organs and state institutions. From this provision it can clearly be seen that the provision in the Act of parliament which stated that the decision made by the minister of local government on the renewal of a market stall license shall be final and not subject to review was unconstitutional as the laws in the constitution is binding to all persons. This can also be seen in the case of The Attorney General V Roy Clark where the high court rejected a government attempt to depot a British journalist according to Article 28(2) of the immigration and deportation Act. This was later appealed in the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court set aside the decision to depot Clarke because at the satirical article on the basis that the decision was unreasonable but did not accept the article fell within the protection given to freedom of expression by the constitution.
To mention that judicial review is aimed at reviewing whether the decision made by a public body or a public officer is consistent with the law and whether such necessary procedure was adhered to. The appellant was eligible to proceed with judicial proceedings against the Minister of Local government and the high court of Zambia has adjudication over this matter this is because the high court is granted unlimited and original jurisdiction by the constitution and this cannot be violated by any Act of Parliament. This makes the provision in the Act to be void and not binding on anyone. When the plaintiff request to renew his market license was denied he was free to proceed with judicial review against the Minister of Local government so to be advised on the reason his license was not renewed since the minister falls under the category of those subject to judicial review. And he can decide to start the proceedings in the high court this is because the high court has unlimited and original jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters. In the case of Chilufya v City Council of Kitwe held that a court which terminates a trading license of a person without reasonable ground and a fair hearing violates the constitutional right of such a person. Judicial reviews are powers of the court to review a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function. Judicial review was created after a formulation of the welfare state which increases the likelihood of private citizen’s activities conflicting with the governmental exercise of power. The focus of courts in judicial review is on the decision-making process to enforce and recognize the discretionary powers granted to regulatory bodies in carrying out their mandates. Judicial review should not be in the case where an individual is not satisfied with the merits of the decision and wants the courts to satisfy their whims. This view can be seen in the case of Fredrick Chiluba V Attorney General. The purpose of judicial review is aimed at fair treatment by the authority constituted by law rather that the application of opinion of the judiciary or individual judges. This is because authority constituted by law is objective compared to the subjective opinion of a judge who might be influenced by various social agents that might lead to unfair treatment. Article 18(1) of the constitution of Zambia provides that every person has the right to fair hearing in all courts thus also as held in the case Fredrick Chiluba v Attorney General that “The function of the court is to see the lawful authority is not abused by unfair treatment.
RECONSTRUCT THIS ASSISNMENT IN SIMPLER ENGLISH
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### Introduction
This assignment looks at whether Zambian courts can review a decision made by the Minister of Local Government regarding the renewal of Bupe’s market stall license. Specifically, it examines a law that claims the Minister's decision is final and cannot be challenged in court. Bupe wants to dispute the Minister's refusal to renew his license, and we will analyze the applicable legal principles, how the courts interpret laws that limit their authority, and what Zambian courts are likely to decide in this situation. Relevant legal cases will be cited to support the arguments.
The main issues are:
1. Can the Zambian courts review the Minister of Local Government's decision on renewals of market stall licenses?
2. Can Bupe take the Minister to court if his license was refused by both the Council and the Minister?
3. Is the law stating that the Minister’s decision is final consistent with the Zambian constitution?
According to Article 134 of the Zambian Constitution (Amendment Act 2016), the High Court has original and unlimited jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. The High Court is a superior court, and it can only grant powers that are consistent with the Constitution, which is the highest law of the country. Any law conflicting with the Constitution becomes void.
Article 1 of the Zambian Constitution states that it is the supreme law and any law or custom that contradicts it is invalid. This was illustrated in the case of **Christine Mulundika and Others v. The People**, where a section of the Public Order Act was deemed unconstitutional as it violated rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that any law must abide by the Constitution and applies to everyone, including government officials.
Therefore, the law that says the Minister’s decision regarding market stall license renewals is final and unreviewable contradicts the Constitution and is unconstitutional. The Constitution binds all individuals and institutions, including ministers.
The court also established in **The Attorney General v. Roy Clark** that attempts by the government to deport someone without a lawful basis or fair process can be challenged. The Supreme Court later overturned the decision to deport a journalist, citing the need for fair treatment and reasonableness in government actions.
Judicial review is a legal process to assess whether decisions made by public officials align with the law and follow proper procedures. Bupe can take action against the Minister of Local Government, as the High Court has the authority to review this kind of decision. This is due to the Constitution giving the High Court original and unlimited jurisdiction, which cannot be overridden by any Act of Parliament. Thus, the provision that claims the Minister's decision is final is void.
When Bupe’s request to renew his market stall license was denied, he was entitled to seek judicial review against the Minister. The High Court has the authority to examine whether the Minister acted within the law, as the minister is subject to judicial review.
In the case of **Chilufya v. City Council of Kitwe**, the court ruled that terminating someone's trading license without a good reason or fair hearing was unconstitutional. The authority must follow the law fairly when making decisions, ensuring that individuals are treated justly.
Judicial review arises from the need to ensure fair treatment when individual activities conflict with government actions. The focus is on the decision-making process of public bodies and whether they have followed legal guidelines. It should not be used merely to challenge unfavorable decisions. In **Fredrick Chiluba v. Attorney General**, the court reinforced that its role is to ensure lawful authority is exercised fairly.
Additionally, Article 18(1) of the Zambian Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing for everyone. The court's function is to prevent unfair treatment by ensuring that authority is exercised correctly according to the law, rather than based on subjective opinions.
In summary, Bupe has the right to challenge the Minister's decision through judicial review, as the High Court has the necessary authority and the law preventing this review is unconstitutional.
This assignment looks at whether Zambian courts can review a decision made by the Minister of Local Government regarding the renewal of Bupe’s market stall license. Specifically, it examines a law that claims the Minister's decision is final and cannot be challenged in court. Bupe wants to dispute the Minister's refusal to renew his license, and we will analyze the applicable legal principles, how the courts interpret laws that limit their authority, and what Zambian courts are likely to decide in this situation. Relevant legal cases will be cited to support the arguments.
The main issues are:
1. Can the Zambian courts review the Minister of Local Government's decision on renewals of market stall licenses?
2. Can Bupe take the Minister to court if his license was refused by both the Council and the Minister?
3. Is the law stating that the Minister’s decision is final consistent with the Zambian constitution?
According to Article 134 of the Zambian Constitution (Amendment Act 2016), the High Court has original and unlimited jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters. The High Court is a superior court, and it can only grant powers that are consistent with the Constitution, which is the highest law of the country. Any law conflicting with the Constitution becomes void.
Article 1 of the Zambian Constitution states that it is the supreme law and any law or custom that contradicts it is invalid. This was illustrated in the case of **Christine Mulundika and Others v. The People**, where a section of the Public Order Act was deemed unconstitutional as it violated rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that any law must abide by the Constitution and applies to everyone, including government officials.
Therefore, the law that says the Minister’s decision regarding market stall license renewals is final and unreviewable contradicts the Constitution and is unconstitutional. The Constitution binds all individuals and institutions, including ministers.
The court also established in **The Attorney General v. Roy Clark** that attempts by the government to deport someone without a lawful basis or fair process can be challenged. The Supreme Court later overturned the decision to deport a journalist, citing the need for fair treatment and reasonableness in government actions.
Judicial review is a legal process to assess whether decisions made by public officials align with the law and follow proper procedures. Bupe can take action against the Minister of Local Government, as the High Court has the authority to review this kind of decision. This is due to the Constitution giving the High Court original and unlimited jurisdiction, which cannot be overridden by any Act of Parliament. Thus, the provision that claims the Minister's decision is final is void.
When Bupe’s request to renew his market stall license was denied, he was entitled to seek judicial review against the Minister. The High Court has the authority to examine whether the Minister acted within the law, as the minister is subject to judicial review.
In the case of **Chilufya v. City Council of Kitwe**, the court ruled that terminating someone's trading license without a good reason or fair hearing was unconstitutional. The authority must follow the law fairly when making decisions, ensuring that individuals are treated justly.
Judicial review arises from the need to ensure fair treatment when individual activities conflict with government actions. The focus is on the decision-making process of public bodies and whether they have followed legal guidelines. It should not be used merely to challenge unfavorable decisions. In **Fredrick Chiluba v. Attorney General**, the court reinforced that its role is to ensure lawful authority is exercised fairly.
Additionally, Article 18(1) of the Zambian Constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing for everyone. The court's function is to prevent unfair treatment by ensuring that authority is exercised correctly according to the law, rather than based on subjective opinions.
In summary, Bupe has the right to challenge the Minister's decision through judicial review, as the High Court has the necessary authority and the law preventing this review is unconstitutional.