Question
reconstruct this assignment in betters ( simpler) word and should be 3 pages when converted to microsoft word 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.
Suffice 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.
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.
Suffice 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.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Revised Assignment: Judicial Review in Zambia Regarding Market Stall Licenses**
**Page 1: Introduction**
The focus of this assignment is to understand whether the courts in Zambia can review decisions made by the Minister of Local Government regarding the renewal of market stall licenses. Specifically, we will look at two main questions:
1. Can someone whose license has been denied by both the local council and the Minister file for a judicial review against the Minister's decision?
2. Is the law stating that the Minister's decision on license renewal is final and cannot be reviewed by courts consistent with the Zambian Constitution?
**Page 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court**
According to Article 134 of the Zambian Constitution (Amendment Act 2016), the High Court of Zambia has original and unlimited jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters. This means that the constitution, being the highest law in the country, gives the High Court the authority to review decisions and ensure that they are lawful.
Any law made by Parliament must align with the Constitution. Section 4 of the High Court Act states that the High Court has the same powers as the High Court of Justice in England. This also emphasizes its role as a superior court of record, suggesting that it can oversee the decisions made by the Minister of Local Government.
The Constitution clearly states in Article 1 that it is the supreme law of Zambia. Any other laws that go against it are void. In the case of Christine Mulundika and others vs. The People, the court found that a particular section of the Public Order Act was unconstitutional because it restricted fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This demonstrates that laws inconsistent with the Constitution cannot stand.
Thus, any provision in the Act of Parliament stating that the Minister’s decision on market stall license renewals is final and unreviewable by the courts conflicts with the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
**Page 3: Judicial Review and Conclusion**
Judicial review serves to ensure that decisions made by public officials are lawful and adhere to proper procedures. Since the High Court possesses original and unlimited jurisdiction, an individual denied a market stall license can file for judicial review against the Minister of Local Government. The courts will then investigate the reasons for the denial, as the Minister is subject to judicial review.
In the case of Chilufya vs. City Council of Kitwe, the court ruled that terminating a trading license without reasonable grounds and a fair hearing violates a person’s constitutional rights. This underlines the importance of judicial review in protecting individual rights.
Judicial review was established to ensure fairness and accountability in the government’s actions, especially as citizens’ activities may collide with the exercises of governmental power. The main aim is to evaluate the decision-making processes of public authorities, ensuring they function within the law. However, judicial review should not be a means for individuals to contest decisions simply because they are unhappy with the outcomes.
The Constitution of Zambia guarantees every person the right to a fair hearing, as stated in Article 18(1). This was confirmed in the case of Fredrick Chiluba vs. Attorney General, where the court maintained that its role is to ensure that lawful authority is not misused through unfair treatment.
In conclusion, an individual denied a market stall license by the Minister of Local Government is entitled to seek judicial review in the High Court of Zambia because the Minister’s decision cannot be considered final if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Consequently, the High Court serves as a crucial mechanism for upholding justice and ensuring that public authorities adhere to the law.
This assignment highlights the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual rights against potential government overreach and affirms that every decision made by public officials is subject to legal scrutiny.
**Page 1: Introduction**
The focus of this assignment is to understand whether the courts in Zambia can review decisions made by the Minister of Local Government regarding the renewal of market stall licenses. Specifically, we will look at two main questions:
1. Can someone whose license has been denied by both the local council and the Minister file for a judicial review against the Minister's decision?
2. Is the law stating that the Minister's decision on license renewal is final and cannot be reviewed by courts consistent with the Zambian Constitution?
**Page 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court**
According to Article 134 of the Zambian Constitution (Amendment Act 2016), the High Court of Zambia has original and unlimited jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters. This means that the constitution, being the highest law in the country, gives the High Court the authority to review decisions and ensure that they are lawful.
Any law made by Parliament must align with the Constitution. Section 4 of the High Court Act states that the High Court has the same powers as the High Court of Justice in England. This also emphasizes its role as a superior court of record, suggesting that it can oversee the decisions made by the Minister of Local Government.
The Constitution clearly states in Article 1 that it is the supreme law of Zambia. Any other laws that go against it are void. In the case of Christine Mulundika and others vs. The People, the court found that a particular section of the Public Order Act was unconstitutional because it restricted fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This demonstrates that laws inconsistent with the Constitution cannot stand.
Thus, any provision in the Act of Parliament stating that the Minister’s decision on market stall license renewals is final and unreviewable by the courts conflicts with the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
**Page 3: Judicial Review and Conclusion**
Judicial review serves to ensure that decisions made by public officials are lawful and adhere to proper procedures. Since the High Court possesses original and unlimited jurisdiction, an individual denied a market stall license can file for judicial review against the Minister of Local Government. The courts will then investigate the reasons for the denial, as the Minister is subject to judicial review.
In the case of Chilufya vs. City Council of Kitwe, the court ruled that terminating a trading license without reasonable grounds and a fair hearing violates a person’s constitutional rights. This underlines the importance of judicial review in protecting individual rights.
Judicial review was established to ensure fairness and accountability in the government’s actions, especially as citizens’ activities may collide with the exercises of governmental power. The main aim is to evaluate the decision-making processes of public authorities, ensuring they function within the law. However, judicial review should not be a means for individuals to contest decisions simply because they are unhappy with the outcomes.
The Constitution of Zambia guarantees every person the right to a fair hearing, as stated in Article 18(1). This was confirmed in the case of Fredrick Chiluba vs. Attorney General, where the court maintained that its role is to ensure that lawful authority is not misused through unfair treatment.
In conclusion, an individual denied a market stall license by the Minister of Local Government is entitled to seek judicial review in the High Court of Zambia because the Minister’s decision cannot be considered final if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Consequently, the High Court serves as a crucial mechanism for upholding justice and ensuring that public authorities adhere to the law.
This assignment highlights the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual rights against potential government overreach and affirms that every decision made by public officials is subject to legal scrutiny.