RULING OF THE COURT
The applicant moved to the High Court by a motion for judicial review orders of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus after the 1st respondent issued a seizure notice in respect of the sugar shipment for which it insisted the same 1st respondent had granted it a licence to import; that it had also been issued with an extended pre-shipment approval; that the 6th respondent had examined the sugar and found it suitable; and that the applicant had complied with all import procedures on the basis of which it proceeded to import the sugar in question.
In view of the foregoing the impugned letter of 7th September, 2018 by the 1st respondent directing the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents to destroy the seized sugar must have come as a surprise to the applicant.
In the motion, the applicant contended that the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational because the sugar had been tested prior to shipment; that the 6th respondent had analyzed and found the sugar to be in…