Introduction Public law administration is applicable in providing justice to everyone. Judicial review processes seek to expand the knowledge base on helping judicial sector practitioners deliver justifiable rulings to claimants as well as protect the executive and public bodies from disproportionate legislation. This paper discusses the extent to which rules of standing and the grounds of judicial review have struck the right balance between helping claimants achieve justice and protecting the executive and public bodies from excessive litigation. The Rational for Administering Justice The process of attaining a balance between helping claimants win cases as well as shielding the executive and other public agencies from disproportionate litigation has been challenging. 1 Probably, the urgent questions then one can ask are what constitutes justice, whether or not achieving justice matter, and is justice only be seen to be done only when a petitioner wins. There is the need for the judges to make the most accurate decisions while handling cases. 2 Grounds of Judicial Review The judges involved in hearing and determining cases must adhere to the regulations that govern their practice. They ought to understand their failure to follow the legal provisions render their decisions, actions, or avoidance of action illegal. 3 The executive and the public bodies sometimes make illegal decisions, which affect people. The people in may seek legal redress through the courts and the courts may eventually declare the decisions were illegitimate. 4 There are situations when the legislations concerning public bodies fail to incorporate the obligatory power or defined boundaries on the application of their powers. The public bodies can make illegal decisions by applying undefined powers provided in the legislations. The illegal decisions made by the public bodies’ amounts to action in ultra vires (meaning outside their authorities). 5 The laws governing public bodies’ allows full discretion or suggest that public bodies shall discharge duties under certain situations. The laws fail to stipulate specific procedures for identifying whether those situations emerge in every individual case. 6 The standards demand that public bodies consider pertinent information and consider them appropriately as well as disregard extraneous information. 7 The public bodies should make accurate inquiries by addressing relevant matters and taking practical steps to acquire appropriate information on which decision-making can rely upon. The public bodies should avoid entrusting other people to make appropriate decisions on their behalf because it is illegal and takes away their accountability privileges. 8 The public bodies should also fulfill the Human Rights Act provisions by ensuring that their decisions are compatible with the convention on human rights. The grounds for judicial review also entail opinions by the courts that certain decisions were evidently unfair and amounts to irrationality. 9 The scale for decisions on judicial review pertaining to irrationality emerged as early as 1948. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation , Lord Green argued, “If a decision on a competent matt