The inherent review jurisdiction of the supreme court
type: CreativeWork
description: This thesis concerns the inherent review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The remedy is isolated from, examined and compared with the (general) inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The purpose of the remedy is: • i) to control, supervise, or otherwise confine administrative authorities, · tribunals and voluntary associations to their respective enabling Acts, terms of reference or constitutions and to certain judicially required norms of conduct; ii) . to do justice in regard to the proceedings of inferior courts where no other remedy is available. The inherent review jurisdiction is not an appellate remedy. In the exercise of such. jurisdiction the Court will not interfere with merits of the decision a quo - it is concerned only with the validity of such decision. The remedy is examined under the following headings: .il its principal features; ii) the ground for its grant; iii) the various methods by which it may be invoked. Thereafter the remedy is evaluated. Although its importance is acknowledged, certain defects in the remedy are indicated. The remedy was not conferred upon the Court by legislation, yet by 1890 its existence. was acknowledged. The question of the origin of the remedy is raised not only for its academic interest but also for the possible, practical advantage of improving the remedy. The origin of the remedy was sought first in the Roman-Dutch procedural law period at the Cape (1652 - 1834). This enquiry showed that the source of the remedy is not to be found in this period or in the Roman Dutch law. Thereafter the origin was sought during the English procedural law period (from 1834). The remedy was unknown at the Cape in 1834 yet by 1890 it was fully acknowledged by the Cape Supreme CourL Accordingly this· period may be regarded as the gestation stage of the remedy. It was necessary, too, to investigate the relevant law, in England and in • the former Dutch colonies of Ceylon and those in South America (which be- , . . came British_ Guian~), d…
abstract: This thesis concerns the inherent review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The remedy is isolated from, examined and compared with the (general) inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The purpose of the remedy is: • i) to control, supervise, or otherwise confine administrative authorities, · tribunals and voluntary associations to their respective enabling Acts, terms of reference or constitutions and to certain judicially required norms of conduct; ii) . to do justice in regard to the proceedings of inferior courts where no other remedy is available. The inherent review jurisdiction is not an appellate remedy. In the exercise of such. jurisdiction the Court will not interfere with merits of the decision a quo - it is concerned only with the validity of such decision. The remedy is examined under the following headings: .il its principal features; ii) the ground for its grant; iii) the various methods by which it may be invoked. Thereafter the remedy is evaluated. Although its importance is acknowledged, certain defects in the remedy are indicated. The remedy was not conferred upon the Court by legislation, yet by 1890 its existence. was acknowledged. The question of the origin of the remedy is raised not only for its academic interest but also for the possible, practical advantage of improving the remedy. The origin of the remedy was sought first in the Roman-Dutch procedural law period at the Cape (1652 - 1834). This enquiry showed that the source of the remedy is not to be found in this period or in the Roman Dutch law. Thereafter the origin was sought during the English procedural law period (from 1834). The remedy was unknown at the Cape in 1834 yet by 1890 it was fully acknowledged by the Cape Supreme CourL Accordingly this· period may be regarded as the gestation stage of the remedy. It was necessary, too, to investigate the relevant law, in England and in • the former Dutch colonies of Ceylon and those in South America (which be- , . . came British_ Guian~), d…
author: Taitz, Jerold Leonard
language: en
keywords: Supreme court, Jurisdiction of the court, Cape
date published: 1983
date modified: 2026-07-22T22:22:38Z
provider: University of Cape Town
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: Centre for Law and Society

PropertyValue
property ID: Handle
value: http://hdl.handle.net/11427/42862