Welcome to Retirement Benefits Authority   Click to listen highlighted text! Welcome to Retirement Benefits Authority Powered By GSpeech

 

 Facts of the case

 By notice of motion dated 24 July 2017 Network for Water and Sanitation International and Network for Water and Sanitation International Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme (the scheme) sought an order of certiorari from the court to quash the decision of the Authority appointing Roberts Insurance Brokers Limited as interim administrators for the scheme. The Authority appointed the interim administrator for a period of 3 months from 29 May 2017. The scheme argued that the Authority had no legal basis to appoint an interim administrator to assume the management, control and conduct of affairs and business of the trustees.

 An order of certiorari is one of the four traditional remedies in administrative law and the most commonly sought after. The result of the order is the quashing or invalidating of the decision of the administrative body, in this case, the Authority. The court cannot substitute its decision with that of the administrative body as it has no statutory mandate to do so. Other administrative law remedies include mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus.

 Authority’s case

 a)    Clear violations of the law were captured and documented to support the Authority’s decision to place the scheme under interim administration. In particular violation to sections 26, 33 ,34, 40 (c) and (d)and 53 (A) (1) of the Act;

 b)    The Authority had documented key actions such as inspection, subsequent meetings, letters and reminders regarding the status of the scheme;

 c)     There was deducted and unremitted contributions to the scheme;

 d)    There was no evidence to show that the outstanding contribution due from the sponsor had been remitted and outstanding sum remained unpaid;

 e)     The remedial plan as provided was wholly inadequate.

  Scheme case

 

a)     That majority of the issues raised as violation of the law had been dealt with by appointment of trustees, and preparation of audited accounts though they had not been submitted. The scheme had also submitted a “remedial plan”;

 b)    The Authority did not communicate its rejection of the plan;

 c)     By their own admission, no further contributions were put into the scheme from January 2014;

 d)    The scheme had an administrator in place.

 

   Court finding

a)     The Authority is empowered by the Act to appoint an interim administrator where conditions of section 45(1) are satisfied;

 

b)    In judicial review matters, the court considers the compliance of the decision making process with established criteria of fairness. Therefore the court did not make a determination as to the merits of the decision;

 

c)     The court considered three principle heads of judicial review as highlighted in Council of Civil Service Unions V Minister of State for Civil Service 1984 3 All ER 93. The court further expounded on these principles as follows:


 
Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech