This problem is a straight forward problem in judicial review and prerogative remedies. Judicial review can be done through Prerogative orders. Judicial review refers to the Court’s review of a lower or administrative body’s factual or legal findings. Prerogative remedies are remedies which if not always are designed from the first for the control of governmental duties and powers, have long been used for the purpose especially. These remedies are such as certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus. Appropriate remedies which Cristiano Ronaldo may seek in an action before the High Court and the reasons for seeking of each of the remedies are; Certiorari, this is an order issued by the High Court to an inferior court or any authority exercising judicial functions to investigate and decide the legality and the validity of the orders passed by it. Ronaldo can apply for a remedy of certiorari following the reasons that the administrative body acted in excess of its powers of which is one of the suitable condition for the issuance of this remedy. The reason with which this order can be issued is due to the fact that the administrative body had exercised its powers in excess. In the case of R vs. Electricity commissioners, it stated the conditions suitable for the application of the writ of certiorari in that when a body of persons having a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially, acts in excess of their legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King’s Bench Division. Ronaldo can also base on the ground that there was a failure on the part of the Director of Trade to exercise his discretionary power. The conditions vested upon this ground, is that the same discretionary powers must be exercised by the person to whom it is vested and within the ambit of the law. For instance, in the case of Keshavan Bhaskaran vs. State of Kerala, the rule provided that no school-leaving certificate would be granted to any person unless he had reached 15 years of age. Under certain deserving circumstances, the Director was empowered to grant exemptions from this rule. But the director further self-imposed his own rule that unless the deficiency in age was less than two years, which was contrary to the provisions of the discretion. The court held that the rule of policy was contrary to the law; hence the decision was quashed by certiorari. Also Ronaldo can advance in his argument the fact that there was a violation of the rules of Natural Justice which are the right to be heard and the rule against bias. He was not given the opportunity to be heard. For example in the case of Simeoni Manyaki v. Institute of Financial Management, the court issued certiorari on the reason of failure to observe the rules of natural justice by refusing the applicant the right to be heard.
The case of Sinai Mrumbe and Another v. Muhere Chacha provides that the order of Certiorari is issued by the High Court to quash the proceedings and the decision of a subordinate court or tribunal or a public authority where there are no other alternative remedy. In this problem there is no other remedy which has been stated to be availed to Ronaldo. Therefore certiorari can be issued against Mr. Toure.
The other remedy is mandamus; this is the prerogative writ for compelling performance of public duties. It is a discretionary prerogative power which the court will grant only in suitable cases and withhold in others. Mandamus commands the authority to perform some legal duty. For Mandamus to be granted the case of John Mwombeki Byombalirwa v. The Regional Commissioner Kagera and Another, Mwalusanya, J (as he then was) advanced five conditions for an order of mandamus to be issued they are as follows; the applicant must have demanded performance and the respondent must have refused to perform, the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document