Judicial Review and Administrative Discretion: A Professional Appraisal of Court Oversight of Regulatory Agency Decisions in Nigeria

Judicial review of administrative and regulatory agency decisions is a fundamental mechanism for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that executive discretion does not exceed its statutory or constitutional bounds. In Nigeria, the proliferation of regulatory agencies across sectors including finance, communications, petroleum, and electricity has generated an expanding body of judicial review litigation before the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal. This study professionally appraises the courts' oversight function in relation to regulatory agency decisions in Nigeria, examining the grounds of judicial review, procedural requirements under Order 34 of the Federal High Court Rules, and the substantive standards applied by courts in reviewing agency discretion. A doctrinal methodology is applied, reviewing the Federal High Court Act, the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, selected judicial review decisions involving regulatory agencies such as the Nigerian Communications Commission, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission from 2016 to 2023, and comparative analysis from the United Kingdom. The study evaluates whether Nigerian courts apply a sufficiently rigorous standard of proportionality and reasonableness review to regulatory agency decisions. Available administrative law literature from Nigeria identifies procedural barriers to timely judicial review applications and courts' over-deference to agency expertise as the primary impediments to effective oversight. The Wednesbury Unreasonableness Standard and the Proportionality Review Framework provide the analytical reference. Recommendations address judicial review procedure simplification and proportionality standard adoption. Keywords: judicial review, administrative discretion, regulatory agencies, Federal High Court, Nigeria.