ABSTRACT
This dissertation aimed at examining judicial review of administrative actions in Nigeria. Judicial review is the power of a court to examine the acts of the other branches of government, lower courts, public or administrative authorities and uphold them or invalidate them as may be necessary in line with the relevant constitutional provisions which empowered the courts to review acts of administrative bodies or authorities in Nigeria. These methods are through habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, injunction, declaration, compensation and apology and damages. The research methodology adopted is doctrinal which include statutes, judicial authorities, relevant books, articles in journal publication, conference papers and internet materials. However, the statement of problem of this dissertation is that the problem of this research is that there are issues of misconception in the application of the various methods of judicial review in the Nigerian courts. For example, sometimes lawyers argued that the action of administrative bodies is neither judicial or quasi-judicial but rather political and not within the power of the court for judicial review. Thus, the objective of this dissertation is to identify the adequacy or otherwise of the specific method of judicial review of administrative actions with a view to addressing the challenges that are associated with the remedies that are open to the Nigerian citizens. In line with this, the dissertation found (among others) that in order to review an administrative action, the rules of interpreting statutes defeat the cause of justice in certain instances. Finally this dissertation was concluded by recommending (among others) that courts should not only give a superficial interpretation of statutes they should where necessary break or lift the legislative as well as the statutory veil to know the real intents of the legislature, so as to ensure that administrative authorities function within their powers and according to law.