Issues that may constitute errors of law on face of records. By Johnson Yesaya

 

PRELIMINARY

An error of law is an erroneous determination of the legal rules governing procedure, evidence or the matters at issue between the parties. If an error of law is harmless, an appellate court will not reverse the judgment below. If it is found to be prejudicial error that was consequential to a party's right to a fair trial, the outcome will be reversed and a new trial ordered.  A harmless error is an erroneous decision by a judge in the conduct of a trial that an appellate court finds was "harmless", in that it was not damaging enough, and did not cause prejudice to the appealing party's right to a fair trial, and was not sufficient to reverse the judgment below. 

Error of law apparent upon the face of the record is a defect which may trigger prerogative orders by court, decision made by court or tribunal while there is visible error of law upon its records turns the decision invalid upon face of the law . A higher court in hierarchy may quash any decision by lower court or tribunal if such decision of lower court or tribunal passed while there is error of law and records of the proceeding clearly show such error. In other circumstances, a court of law may quash decision of lower court or tribunal where the lower court or tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a matter but proceeded to decide,  where in exercising its powers, the tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction. Thirdly, where the decision was obtained by fraud or by perjury of one of the parties. 

There has been a long time arguments by academicians on the basis of certiorari as one of the remedy to decision passed under error of law upon face of the records of a trial. There has been a controversy, some academicians comments that, certiorari is not a suitable remedy to error of law upon face of records to all circumstances. Most of academicians draws conclusion from two questions, one, what is error of law?, second, what is error of law upon face of records?, some academicians comments that, there might be an error of law which is not included in records of proceedings, at this point, how the higher court is going to recognize an error which is not in records of a proceeding for a purpose to quash decision.  It will be impossible for a court conducting review of case to quash decision on fact of error of law upon records where such errors are not visible within proceedings records. Other academicians comments that, certiorari is a remedy to an error of law where such error is visible within records of a trial, according to them, there is no possibility to quash decision of lower court or tribunal by high rank court in a hierarchy where there is no proof of the error of law in records of the proceedings.

ISSUES THAT CONSTITUTE AN ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF RECORDS

Seriousness of the Error, not all errors of law upon records of proceedings constitutes ground to certiorari, it is simple enough to say that where an error of law arise upon the face of the record certiorari is available, there is considerable obscurity surrounding the question of what constitutes an error of law. As the remedy is discretionary, the court is at liberty to hold that though there has been an error, it is not an error of sufficient magnitude to justify the order.

In Baldwin and Francis v Patents Appeal Tribunaf , Lord Denning was able to side with the majority opinion in holding that, though the error of law did appear upon the face of the record, it was not an error which would warrant the remedy of certiorari. An error must be a serious error which prevent justice to parties, and an error which interfere core legal procedures which are mandatory to be followed.

Wrong finding of facts, finding of facts is another issue which may constitute an error of law. Magistrates and judges decides cases depending to what they observed in facts adduced by parties, if happens a magistrate get wrong findings in facts adduced, there is a huge possibility to decide a matter in error. During decision making, magistrates are required to draw conclusion from evidence adduced connected to facts findings by court in regard to the provisions of the laws, when a magistrate fail to determine facts appropriately, it may lead them to wrong decision.

In R. v. Nat Bell liquors , one of the ground for application of certiorari was lack of evidence connected to the facts findings in a case at all upon the charge of selling liquor in a manner contravening the statute. The Privy Council, which reversed the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court allowing the issue of certiorari, admitted that certiorari would go for a mistaken finding of fact. To support the order it would be required that no evidence at all was given on the essential issue. But, had any evidence at all been led upon that point, then its weight was a matter entirely for the inferior tribunal.

Wrong finding of facts amount to a failure to acquire jurisdiction. Courts and tribunals acts within limited powers provided under the law, a court or tribunal cannot entertain a matter without first determining if the case falls within limits of its jurisdiction. Acting out of powers by court to entertain matters is null. When a court or magistrate is incapable to determine jurisdiction due to wrong facts findings, it will be impossible to determine the matter properly and it will lead to error of law when court force to decide a matter without knowing if they are acting within their jurisdiction depending to the jurisdictional facts adduced before court by parties.

in Keogh's case, it was decided that, the magistrates could convict the accused only if the prerequisite facts on jurisdiction were fulfilled and not otherwise. The basis of this is to guarantee the accurate actions of courts upon matter before them

Mistake in the court's reasoning amount to an error of law, reasoning is a method of thought and argument used by lawyers and judges when applying legal rules to specific interactions among legal persons. Legal reasoning in the case of a court’s ruling is found in the ‘Discussion or Analysis’ section of the judicial ruling.  It is here that the court gives reason for its legal ruling, and it helps other courts, lawyers and judges to use and follow the ruling in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the ‘discussion or analysis’ section must be well reasoned and written.

The problem starts when court of law or a decision maker in a tribunal fails to reason properly on the facts adduced by parties, or he fails to connect facts against provisions of the laws in way which will lead to accurate decision, what follows is bad decision with serious errors of the law. If an aggrieved party is elite enough to recognize a failure by court to reason a matter properly, there is huge possibility to successful challenge the decision before superior court.

Reasons are required to be given by statute and some reasons are omitted. When it is mandatory to give reason for the decision, hands of a decision maker are tied to escape such requirement otherwise a decision will be as good as wastage of time. In case one goes against this requirement of the law, an affected party may easily apply for quashing order against decision passed without conforming to the requirements of the law.

In Baldwin and Francis , all of the Law Lords were inclined to the view that where reasons must be given, or considerations adverted to, and the tribunal fails, either to give such reasons, or advert to such considerations, then it is acting in a way which will render its decision liable to be quashed.

CONCLUSION

Errors of law are fatal defect which turns decision of the court or tribunal null, the issues which may lead to errors of law as explained above are among the common issues but there is irregularities in conducting proceedings and acts or omissions in proceedings which may lead to errors of law. What is necessary to avoid errors of law upon face of records, magistrates and decision makers are required to abide to the procedural laws guiding the modes of conducting cases, and record of all steps and activities of proceedings are to be recorded accurately without errors which may affect the legality of such cases.

REFERENCE

BOOKS

Phil Kunjombe, The Principles of Natural Justice, 2010

Thakker, C.K (1995), Lecturer on Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

Takwani, C.K.C (1998), Administrative Law, 4th Ed, Eastern Book Company, New Delhi.

Oluyede, P.O (2006), Administrative Law in East Africa, Kenya Literature Bureau, Nairobi.

ONLINE

https://barprephero.com/legal-terms/evidence/error-of-law/

https://barprephero.com/legal-terms/evidence/harmless-error/

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1964/21.pdf

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/delegated-or-secondary-legislation/

CASES

Baldwin and Francis v Patents Appeal Tribunal 

In R. v. Nat Bell liquors 

in Keogh's case