Question
Retention in administrative law is a principle that governs the use of administrative powers. The word “Retention,” comes from the word “retain,” which simply means to “hold.” Retention is therefore a principle in administrative law that provides that lawful exercise of administrative power must be exercised by the authority upon whom the power is conferred, and by no one else. In simple terms, the principle simply requires that only the person/ entity in whom power is vested must exercise that power. The principle is strictly applied by the courts, even where it causes administrative inconvenience, except in cases where it may reasonably be inferred that the power was intended to be delegable. Normally, the courts are rigorous in requiring the power to be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute, and will condemn as ultra vires, actions taken by agents, sub – committees or delegates, however expressly authorized by the authority endowed with the power. See the case of Rev Lamek Kausa v Registrar of Societies.20
In this case, the applicant, applied for an order of certiorari on behalf of the African National Church. The application was to quash the decision of the assistant Registrar of Societies wherein he had refused to register the church and had rescinded its exemption from registration. The applicant alleged that the orders where null and void as the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction or power to issue the orders and consequently were not made by a proper authority.
The court held among others that the judicial functions imposed on the Registrar of Societies by the Societies Act, could only be performed by him personally and cannot be carried out through subordinate officers.
20 [1977] ZR 195
34
In short, the court held that the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Societies was illegal as it was made by the wrong person.
See also the cases of Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v The Attorney General,21 and the case of Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General.22In both cases, the Court held that the Speaker acted contrary to the constitution and his actions were therefore null and void. In both cases, the court found the action of the Speaker to have been unconstitutional as the Speaker is not vested with power to interpret or resolve constitutional problems. This power is vested in the judiciary and the Speaker, therefore, usurped the powers of the judiciary. See also the case of Kang’ombe v the Attorney General above.
One aspect of this principle is the rule that the participation of non – members in the deliberations or decisions of a collective body may invalidate its acts. The decision of a disciplinary committee, for example, is likely to be invalid if any non – member of the committee has taken part in its proceeding explain in simpler terms
In this case, the applicant, applied for an order of certiorari on behalf of the African National Church. The application was to quash the decision of the assistant Registrar of Societies wherein he had refused to register the church and had rescinded its exemption from registration. The applicant alleged that the orders where null and void as the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction or power to issue the orders and consequently were not made by a proper authority.
The court held among others that the judicial functions imposed on the Registrar of Societies by the Societies Act, could only be performed by him personally and cannot be carried out through subordinate officers.
20 [1977] ZR 195
34
In short, the court held that the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Societies was illegal as it was made by the wrong person.
See also the cases of Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v The Attorney General,21 and the case of Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General.22In both cases, the Court held that the Speaker acted contrary to the constitution and his actions were therefore null and void. In both cases, the court found the action of the Speaker to have been unconstitutional as the Speaker is not vested with power to interpret or resolve constitutional problems. This power is vested in the judiciary and the Speaker, therefore, usurped the powers of the judiciary. See also the case of Kang’ombe v the Attorney General above.
One aspect of this principle is the rule that the participation of non – members in the deliberations or decisions of a collective body may invalidate its acts. The decision of a disciplinary committee, for example, is likely to be invalid if any non – member of the committee has taken part in its proceeding explain in simpler terms
Answers
GPT-4o mini
Retention in administrative law is an important principle that ensures that only the person or group who has been officially given power can use that power. In simpler terms, it means that if someone has a specific job or authority, only they can make decisions or take actions related to that job.
For instance, if a law says that the Registrar of Societies has the power to make decisions about registering churches, that power must be used by the Registrar only, not by assistants or other officials. If an assistant tries to make a decision that only the Registrar should make, that decision can be deemed illegal.
A good example of this principle is seen in the case of Rev Lamek Kausa v Registrar of Societies. In this case, Rev Kausa asked the court to cancel a decision made by an Assistant Registrar who denied the registration of a church. The court concluded that the Assistant Registrar did not have the authority to make that decision, and therefore it was invalid.
Similarly, in the cases of Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v The Attorney General and Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General, the court ruled that the Speaker of the House cannot make decisions on constitutional issues, as that power belongs to the judiciary (the courts). When the Speaker tried to make such decisions, the court found that those actions were unconstitutional because they overstepped the Speaker's authority.
Another part of the retention principle is that if someone who isn’t supposed to be involved in a group or committee participates in decision-making, it could make those decisions invalid. For example, if a disciplinary committee has members who are not supposed to be there, any decisions they make might not be recognized as valid.
In summary, retention in administrative law emphasizes that authority should only be exercised by the designated individuals or bodies, and any deviation from this principle can result in decisions being declared invalid or illegal.
For instance, if a law says that the Registrar of Societies has the power to make decisions about registering churches, that power must be used by the Registrar only, not by assistants or other officials. If an assistant tries to make a decision that only the Registrar should make, that decision can be deemed illegal.
A good example of this principle is seen in the case of Rev Lamek Kausa v Registrar of Societies. In this case, Rev Kausa asked the court to cancel a decision made by an Assistant Registrar who denied the registration of a church. The court concluded that the Assistant Registrar did not have the authority to make that decision, and therefore it was invalid.
Similarly, in the cases of Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba v The Attorney General and Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General, the court ruled that the Speaker of the House cannot make decisions on constitutional issues, as that power belongs to the judiciary (the courts). When the Speaker tried to make such decisions, the court found that those actions were unconstitutional because they overstepped the Speaker's authority.
Another part of the retention principle is that if someone who isn’t supposed to be involved in a group or committee participates in decision-making, it could make those decisions invalid. For example, if a disciplinary committee has members who are not supposed to be there, any decisions they make might not be recognized as valid.
In summary, retention in administrative law emphasizes that authority should only be exercised by the designated individuals or bodies, and any deviation from this principle can result in decisions being declared invalid or illegal.