Access to Justice and Public Interest Litigation: Getting Nowhere Quickly?

Author(s):  
Laurence W. Gormley
Author(s):  
Florian Matthey-Prakash

Chapter 4 deals with the issue of lack of access to justice and attempts to find reasons for the inaccessibility of the higher judiciary. While it appears to be clear to observers that the Supreme Court and high courts are not accessible enough, surprisingly, there are actually no empirical studies that examine why this is the case. Some factors can, however, be deduced from a study dealing with the inaccessibility of district courts, that is, the lower judiciary.The fourth chapter also shows that the institution of Public Interest Litigation, for various reasons, cannot compensate for lack of access to justice, and that the state is not properly implementing (or not at all exploring) many other possible alternative mechanisms.


2021 ◽  
pp. 85-112
Author(s):  
Jason Brickhill ◽  
Zanele Mbuyisa

Jason Brickhill and Zanele Mbuyisa review the current state of play in South Africa in terms of the imposition of civil liability on multinationals for human rights abuses. They outline the rules on jurisdiction over claims by foreign claimants and corporations and potential causes of action under common law, statute, and the Constitution. Specific consideration is given to the potential influence on the development of South African law of recent English law decisions on parent company liability. By reference to the goldminers’ silicosis and the Kabwe lead poisoning cases, they highlight the value to victims of the relatively recent developments of class actions in South Africa and the rules on discovery and damages. In terms of access to justice, they consider the receptiveness of the judiciary to public interest litigation and the key provisions relating to prescription and costs and funding, including by litigation funders.


2010 ◽  
pp. 85-89
Author(s):  
Manas Ranjan Samantaray ◽  
Mritunjay Sharma

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate in government decision making. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable. This article will show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could achieve these important objectives. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-today basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and legislature. The challenge for states, therefore, is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build in economic (dis)incentives in PIL and also confine it primarily to those cases where access to justice is undermined by some kind of disability. Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Court’s directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of India pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.


2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 929-947
Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Richez ◽  
Erin Crandall

AbstractThis article analyzes an important discretionary power of the Supreme Court of Canada, the ability to award costs. With the use of an original data set, we explore trends in costs awarding in public interest litigation at the Supreme Court from 1970 to 2012. Our findings suggest that, over time, the Court has tended to favour nongovernment parties over government parties where the former are less likely to pay costs when they lose and more likely to receive costs when they win. In these cases, costs orders were more likely to benefit public interest litigants, such as nongovernmental organizations, than individual litigants and businesses. Together, these findings suggest a sensitivity to access to justice concerns when making costs orders, though some may argue that this sensitivity by the Court does not extend far enough.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (29) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olayinka O. Adeniyi ◽  
Omolade O. Olomola

The percentage of girl child illiteracy is higher in girls than boys in Africa. This is particularly so in Nigeria. It is trite that Girl-child issues are generally confined within women’sright in Nigeria. As important as education isto life and humanity, it however falls under socio economic rights in Nigeria, which by virtue of the interpretation of constitutional provisions are argued as non-justiciable. Hence, accessing education for the girl child as a justice system or mechanism has been a challenge in the country. In recent times, some countries have directed public Interest litigation into fighting some socio-economic issues. This is a development which has not been practiced earlier and success is being recorded. It can be said that Public Interest litigation has been able to deal particularly with the challenge of locus standi which hasto do with the opportunity of accessing justice on some rights issues. Focusing on girl-child education in Nigeria, as a socio-economic rights issue to which access to justice is a challenge and to which legal strategic mechanism can bring a change is a positive one. The paper looks at the impact of African girl child illiteracy at this time in the global environment for sustainable development, the legal impediments to accessing justice on socio economic rights; recent legal mechanisms as best practices of getting socioeconomic rights enforced in some developed countries; innovative and emerging ways of its realization and enforcement in Nigeria. It proffers suggestions on legal and strategic litigation introduction or enhancement mechanism, the challenges if any and the gains more importantly of the public litigation procedure. The paper attempts a desktop and library-based approach in a comparative analysis of legal framework, policies on education, literature review of existing scholarship, case study on strategic litigation in some jurisdictions on socio economic rights and applies it to suggest Public Interest Litigation PIL for girl child education in Nigeria. The paper is germane for women’s right advancement, law and or policy reform and citizen empowerment in Nigeria and Africa at large.


2010 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Brems ◽  
Charles Olufemi Adekoya

AbstractThis article analyses the challenges facing those living in poverty in Nigeria in accessing justice for the enforcement of their rights, despite those rights being constitutionally protected and despite the existence of a specific procedure for their enforcement. People living in poverty are generally most likely to see their human rights violated, and least likely to enforce their rights. The article posits that the judiciary in developing countries has a crucial role to play in fighting human rights violations specifically affecting people living in poverty, and notes the great challenge for the Nigerian legislator and judiciary towards making justice accessible in practical terms to the needy in Nigeria. The example of public interest litigation in India can serve as a source of inspiration in this respect.


Author(s):  
Tracy-Lynn Humby

Using as a case study the recent decision on costs in the Biowatch matter, this article critically examines the traditional fundamental rules on costs in the light of the needs of constitutional and a fortiori public interest litigation. The fundamental rules on costs are taken to include the two traditional principles (that costs are a matter of judicial discretion and that to a successful party should be awarded his costs), the requirement that the discretion be exercised judicially, the test for interference in costs orders in a court of appeal, and the characterisation of costs orders as requiring the exercise of only a narrow discretion on appeal. In the light of the decisions in the Biowatch matter it is argued that the current rules do not meet the new needs of constitutional and/or public interest litigation as regards access to justice, equal protection and benefit of the law, proportionality, and the accountability of the judiciary. Suggestions are made for possible reform.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-128
Author(s):  
Wenjun Yan

Abstract In 2015, the All-China Environment Federation v Dezhou Jinghua Group Zhenhua Corporation Limited case was the first civil environmental public interest litigation (CEPIL) against air pollution in China. Constituting a milestone in the field of air pollution control in China, this case (i) confirms the eligibility of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to file civil public interest litigations; (ii) discusses remedies for the ecological destruction caused by air pollution; (iii) assesses the ecological and environmental damage using the ‘virtual restoration cost’ method; and (iv) uses public apology as an innovative way for Zhenhua to assume liability. By applying and interpreting several important rules under the Environmental Protection Law of China (EPLC) for the first time, this case sets an example for future CEPILs against air pollution in China.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document