CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1. Backgroung Of The Study

At the outset of the study of any branch of law it is desirable to endeavor to define delimit the field of study. In relation to our subject difficulties immediately arise because `administrative law has defied satisfactory definition or delimitation.  Administrative law is essentially concerned with the management of a country’s administration by government officials.

This in essence means that this branch of law dwells much on how top officials including top officials as well as local government authorities carry out public activities for the betterment of its citizens. The object of administrative law is the administration and it is this administration that is the support arm of one of the organs found in the constitution known as the government.

To know what administrative law is we must lay emphasis on the organ called the government which has a constitutional base. The term administrative law has a dual meaning: activities and organs. It is also important to note that the term administration involves both private and public activities and affairs.

Nevertheless, the subject has defied satisfactory definition and delimitation. For over a century, there has been a strong, growing unabated and undoubtedly meritorious controversy as to its proper scope and content. Indeed, Dicey, an eminent British constitutional lawyer, went as far as to say that there was no administrative law in this country (Britain) .

In the sense that there is no self-contained and separate system of administrative law applied in separate courts, as is to be found in many Continental countries.

While many learned authors will not deny the existence of administrative law, there is unequivocal agreement among them that it is not practicable to define administrative law with scientific precision.

Which why Wade, a celebrated author on administrative law seemingly hopelessly declared that “any attempt to define the subject (administrative law) scientifically leads to a number of arguable questions” in defining administrative law. Adopting an explanatory approach, Oluyede, P.A (1988) defined administrative law as “that branch of our law which vest powers in administrative agencies imposes certain requirements on the agencies in the exercise of the powers and provides remedies against unlawful or wrongful acts”.

Okany after drawing attention on the difficulties in attempting a scientific definition of Administrative law stated that “we may define Administrative Law as the law relating to the administrative or the executive and which sets out the powers of the executive branch of government, including various agencies through which powers are exercised. It is that body of rules which aims at reducing the area of conflict between the Administrative Agencies of the state and individuals”.

According to Wade and Bradley, “Administrative law is a branch of public law which is concerned with composition, powers, duties, rights and liabilities of the various organs of government which are encouraged in administration. Or more concisely, the law relating to public administration.”

Sir Ivor Jennings (1959) defines Administrative Law as “the law relating to administration authorities. It determines it determines the Organization, powers and duties of administrative Authorities.”

Egwuznmuo, J.N (2000) defines administrative law as “that branch public law which aims at indicating the rights of citizens against attack (intentionally or inadvertently) emanating from government or its agencies.”  In all, administrative law is a law that reconciles the prerogative of the administration and the rights and liberties of those administered.

Administrative law does not fall under private law, but rather under public law. According to Leon Duguit public law refers to a body of legal rules that apply to the state, to those who are governed and their agents and the relationship between these public agents and private individuals. The purpose of administrative law according to Wade is to keep the powers of government within their legal bounds, so as to protect the citizens against their abuse.

The law governing administrative courts in Cameroon is Law No 2006/022 of 29th December 2006 to lay down the organization and functioning of administrative courts in Cameroon.

Before 2012, there existed no administrative courts in Cameroon and all matters against the government was heard by the Supreme Court located in Yaounde until 2012 when administrative courts were distributed to each region of the country by virtue of Decree No 2012/119 of 15th March 2012. According to section 2(2) of the above law, administrative courts at first instance shall have jurisdiction to determine litigations on Regional and Council elections.

The crux of this dissertation which is the procedure in administrative litigations in Cameroon will attempt to address how administrative litigations can be initiated in administrative courts in Cameroon. Undoubtedly, the initiation of administrative litigations in these courts is by way of petition which comes after the rejection of a complaint by the authority whose act has been challenged three months after such compliant.

Any act performed by a governmental administrator not stipulated by the law is said to be ultra vires which entitles the party whose rights have been infringed to file a complaint to the administrative court with competent jurisdiction.

An example of ultra vires administrative act or decision can be seen in the case of FON of Njap VS State of Cameroon (SDO NDONGA MANTLING). In this case, the Fon of Njap’s petition to the administrative court, he stated among other things, that the “SDO knew very well that Ngong is found in Njap under Nkambe Central.” He told the court president, Rose Mbah Acha Fomundam, that the SDO’s decision was a subtle method to reduce the scope of his village and allocate part of it to another village for personal reasons.

The court also pointed out among other reasons for the verdict, that the prefectoral order, `solving’ a land dispute, was “not arrived at by a legally constituted commission as envisaged by Decree No 781322 of 03/08/1978 on the creation of commissions for the settlement of boundary disputes between administrative units and disputes between traditional communities.”  See also Lyonga Alonge V. The State of Cameroon represented by M.I.N.T.D (Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization), where Mr. Lyonga sued the State of Cameroon for acting ultra vires and violating his rights.

Prior to the enactment of the law instituting administrative courts in Cameroon, administrators were tried in ordinary courts of law but with the coming into force of law No 2006/022 of 29th December 2006, a separate courts know as administrative courts was introduced which handled only administrative litigations and election disputes thus decongesting the work load of ordinary Trial courts since they no longer entertain administrative litigations.

1.2. Statement Of The Problem

The Procedure in Administrative Litigation in Cameroon is so complex and difficult sometimes to draw a distinction between matters reserved exclusively for the administrative court and those reserved for ordinary law courts.

The procedure for the enforcement of rights through the administrative courts in Cameroon calls for attention since it seems relatively new to citizens as the administrative court was centralized only in Yaounde until 2012 when it was decentralized to the regional headquarters . This thesis examines the problem involved in using the administrative court to enforce right violations and its procedure.

English speaking Cameroonians inherited a judicial system from England through colonialism and Nigeria by virtue of being administered as an integral part of Nigeria, reputed for a hierarchical structure of courts with the Supreme Court at the apex followed by the Court of Appeal.

Under this thesis arrangement, the Supreme Court operates as the court of final resort giving decisions with profound implications for precedence and judicial policy directions in the country as well as the Court of Appeal that operates as an appellate court.

The transfer of administrative courts involving rights violations to the administrative court has led to the problem where some courts as courts of First Instance rather than appellate courts and makes the procedure to a common man complex since to them justice has been taken away.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1 General Objectives

The main objective of this dissertation is to examine the procedure in administrative litigations in Cameroon.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

1. To evaluate the prescriptive time for filing a complaint before the administrative court in Cameroon.
2. To assess the seat and area of jurisdiction of the administrative court. -To examine the composition of the administrative court.
3. To evaluate the jurisdiction of the administrative court.
4. To analyze the enforcement procedure undertaken by the administrative court in solving administrative matters.

Check out: Law Project Topics with Materials