Managment case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Managment case - Essay Example Also, by developing a vertical hierarchy where the plant manager is the ultimate authority with multiple layers of management reporting directly to this role, legitimate power through authority is developed effectively. Joined with more visibility among influential players in the business as well as the production staff, this provides more legitimacy and shows off expertise as a means to gain power and control. Doing this will also develop more name recognition for the plant manager among all different layers of authority and subordinate work teams as a means to increase power. Even though the plant management team seems to be on-board with all of the changes being discussed in private management meetings, they are not accomplishing the goals that have been laid out related to productivity and quality standards. The manager needs to develop retribution tactics against the plant management team, from Engineering through to Quality Control in order to ensure that new controls are being developed to meet standards. This can be done either through direct coercion or through intimidation. The plant manager is new in this role and only 33 years of age, therefore there are many opportunities for other seasoned managers to resist change, a common situation in this type of industrial environment. By transforming requests into direct threats, such as I will punish you if you do not meet my expectations, the plant manager sets up a punishment system or can also reward based on meeting productivity and quality targets. Retribution provides quick and immediate results by indicating that there will be consequences if the goals are not achieved, something that must be done at River Woods. However, in relation to the absentee problem, the plant manager can also rely on the close interpersonal relationships between the management team and the production workers

Actus Reus Notes Essay Example for Free

Actus Reus Notes Essay Provides a link between the initial act of the D and the prohibited consequence that has occurred. It forms part of the AR: It is not enough that the prohibited consequences has occurred, it must be caused by the D. * Established by a two-stage test: 1. Factual causation: Only basis, establish a prelimartary connection between act and consequences D’s act must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence(consequences would not have occurred without the D’s action) ’But for’ the D’s action, the consequences would not have occurred Case: White : D wanted to kill her mother with a poison drink but the mother die before the poison drink took effect. LP: The D’s mother would have died anyway but for D’s action, thus he is not the factual cause of death, but he is charged with attempted murder. 2. Legal causation: Chooses the blameworthy a. Case: Pagett To avoid arrest, D used his girlfriend as a shield and firmed at armed police. The police fired back and killed the girl. LP: D’s act need not to be the sole cause of death provided it is a cause that has ‘contributed significantly to the result’ as he sets in motion the chain of events that led to death and it was foreseeable that the police would fire back. D is the most blameworthy Intervening Act: Something that occurs after the D’s act that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the D’s responsibility for the prohibited consequences. Circumstances will only break the chain of causation if they are: a) An overwhelming cause of death b) An unforeseeable occurrence Case that BREAK the chain: Jordan: D stabbed the victim and his wound was healed by the time V arrived to the hospital but he died following an allergic reaction to the drugs given by the hospital. LP: D not liable as the original wound was healed and the treatment was ‘PALPABLY WRONG’ (Obvious) to break the chain of causation. Case that DOESN’T BREAK the chain: Cheshire: D shot the victim in the leg and stomach, where when in hospital V suffered from respiratory complications and die after an operation that the hospital performed a poor standard of care and failed to recognise his wounds. LP: The need for operation flowed from the D’s original act thus he remained liable, the treatment has to be ‘PALPABLY WRONG’ (obvious) to break the chain of causation. Intervening Act falls into 3 categories: 1. Acts of the Victim 2. Acts of Third Parties 3. Naturally Occurring events 1. Acts of the Victim Roberts: D interfered the V’s clothing in the car, causing the V to jump from the moving vehicle and resulted in serious injuries from the fall. LP: It was foreseeable that the victim would have attempted to escape and could be injured in doing so. Chain of causation will only be broken if the V’s action is extreme and unforeseeable. *Only EXTREME ACTS would break it? Consider Thin-Skull rule: *Thin-Skull Rule: EXCEPTION to the rule that D is only liable to the foreseeable consequences of his actions D is liable for the full extent of V’s injuries even if, due to some pre-exisitng condition, the V suffers greater harm as a result of the D’s action than the ‘ordinary’ V would suffer. Cases: Blaue D stabbed the V and punctured her lung, but V refused a blood transfusion as it was contrary to her religion, resulting in death. LP: D convicted of manslaughter as it was held that the rule was not limited to physical conditions but included an individual’s psychological make-up and beliefs. 2. Act of Third Parties Consider: 1. Significance of their contribution 2. Action is foreseeable? 3. Naturally-occurring events * Omissions: Liability only necessary if there is no culpable positive act. Statute: A duty of act only imposed by statute in a narrow range Contract: Case: Pittwood D contracted to monitor the crossing gates so no one is harmed by the train. He failed to close the gates and V was killed by the train. LP: A person under contract will be liable for the harmful consequences of his failure to perform his contractual obligation. This duty extends to those reasonably affected by omission, not just the other party to the contract. Special relationship Case: Gibbins and Procotor First D(Father) failed to provide food to his child who was starved to death. His liability was based upon his omission to fulfil the duty established by the special relationship of father/child. (The case continued:) Voluntary assumption of care Second D(Partner of the father): liable not based on the nature of relationship but because she had previously fed the child but had ceased to do so. * A Person cannot cast off duty to act that the voluntary assumption of care imposes. Dangerous situation Case: Miller D fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. It triggers the mat on fire, but when the D woke up he did nothing to save the fire but move to another spot to sleep. The House was damaged as a result. D argued that his mens rea was not developed at the time the actua reas of the event, dropping the cigarette, occurred. LP: D has created a dangerous situation which he then has the duty to save the fire. * MR arises and coincides with continuing AR. He was liable.

First Case Using DNA in the UK

First Case Using DNA in the UK No humans are exactly alike, and the DNAs are what constructs humans to be genetically unique. Using an extraordinary finding about DNA fingerprinting, a murderer of two 15-year-old in Leicestershire was successfully convicted. On November 21, 1983, Lynda Mann left her house to babysit for a lady down the road. While walking back home on a path called the Black Pad, Lynda was raped and strangled by a man. Her body was found the next morning. The story of Lynda Mann was discussed everywhere near the area and the people in the village were living in fear because the murderer was not found for quite a while. They suspected a man named Colin Pitchfork, a baker with 2 sons, but when asked about what he was doing on the night Lynda Mann disappeared, he answered that he was babysitting his child in his home. The case went cold. On July 31, 1986, another girl named Dawn Ashworth did not return home after taking a shortcut home. After two days, her body was found in a path called Ten Pound Lane. It was found out that she was raped, beaten and strangled. The two murders appeared to be done by the same person and the people believed now that the murderer was local. Richard Buckland, a 17-year-old boy with learning disabilities has been going around the murder scene of Dawn, telling people and the police that they were looking in a wrong spot. He was a local, working in a Carlton Hayes psychiatric hospital. He did not give a definite answer on what he was doing the night when Dawn went missing and so the police arrested him. After questioning, he admitted to the crime involving Dawn Ashworth but denied the murder of Lynda Mann. Thanks to the DNA profiling, it was found out that Richard Buckland was not the killer and Colin Pitchfork was arrested for the murders. This case is interesting because it is the first case where DNA fingerprinting was used to release and convict a person. Even though the village people had skepticism towards the new method of identifying a person, they all agreed to participate and that is how they could connect Colin Pitchfork with the murders. Now, DNA testing is used all around the world and is considered one of the most efficient way to identify a criminal. From Lynda Manns body, the police found and linked a semen sample to a person with a type A blood. They also found an enzyme profile that matched only 10 percent of males. No other evidence was found. Then, from Dawn Ashworths body, they found a semen sample that revealed the same blood type. However, the prime suspect, Richard Buckland, continued to admit to the murder of Dawn but deny the murder of Lynda. The police were sure that those two murders were committed by the same person because the modus operandi of the second murder matched that of the first. Modus operandi, which translate to modes of operation, is someones habit of working usually regarding business or crime. When the police felt that they needed extra help in discovering the murderer, they contacted Sir Alec Jeffrey, a researcher and a scientist at the university of Leicester. He discovered that human DNA produces a constant but unique patterns that can be used to identify one person and find out relationships between family members (Jeffreys, Thein, Wilson, 1985, p. 76). The first method used for DNA profiling involved RFLP analysis. A sample such as blood or semen is cut into small pieces by restriction enzyme. This produces thousands of DNA fragments of different sizes. Then, the fragments are sorted out by size by gel electrophoresis. After this, the fragments are transferred on to the nylon membrane. The process is called Southern blot. A radioactive DNA probe is added where it binds to specific fragments. Lastly, X-ray film is placed to detect the radioactive pattern. Using this method, he compared the semen sample collected from both victim, Lynda and Dawn, and found out that the murder was indeed committed by the same person. However, the prime suspects DNA did not match the DNA of the semen sample. The police had to let Richard Buckland go. To find the murderer, the police went on a man hunt and asked all the male in the village from ages 18-34 to voluntarily take a blood test so they could compare their DNA with the killers DNA. It was solely for elimination purposes. The man hunt was a slow process and the operation was massive. Just when the police were losing hope, everything turned around one day. On August 1, 1987, Ian Kelly, one of Colin Pitchforks, the man that was questioned for Lynda Mann few years back, fellow worker at the bakery, told his colleagues in a Leicester pub that he has gone to do the blood test instead of Pitchfork because he has asked him to. Pitchforks excuse was that he had already given his blood pretending to be a friend who wanted to avoid being questioned about a youthful conviction for burglary. A woman overheard what Ian Kelly said and called the police to report it. On September 19, 1987, Pitchfork was arrested. His blood and saliva matched the semen samples taken from the scene of two crimes (Ottawa, Ont, 1988). This could be seen from the pattern of the DNA. When the x-ray of both sampled are placed beside each other, you could see that the pattern of 2 bands were the same or similar in location. He eventually admitted to the murders and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The impacts that this crime had to the society is the fact that young women feel more vulnerable no matter where they are. They have to live in constant fear that they might be a victim of a rape or murder just because they were simply there (Siddle, 2015). Lynda Manns sister, Rebecca Eastwood has set up an online petition against releasing Pitchfork and it has passed 4,000 signatures. She fears that If released he will kill again and he will always be danger to the public (Siddle, 2015). The fact that he doesnt have to wait for girls to hunt anymore but simply go online and find girls on social media websites scares many people that he would commit the same crime but through an easier way. Rebecca has said that Pitchfork has effected her family, especially her mom. she has been strong and tough through out the years knowing that he is in prison. She does not know how her mom would carry on if he is released. This case forces law enforcements and government to prioritize security at night in pathways and roads. The government also has to make sure that young children are not walking by themselves late at night because they could get themselves in danger. This case has also proven that DNA fingerprinting is an efficient way to identify a person through blood, saliva, semen and so on. The people, who were not really sure if this method would work, were reassured after Colin Pitchfork was arrested that this way of testing worked and that this finding is revolutionary to forensic science. Colin Pitchfork was sentenced to a minimum term of 30 years. However, in 2009, Pitchforks sentence was reduced to 28 years. Bibliography Man nabbed by genetic fingerprints gets life. (1988, Jan 23). The Ottawa Citizen Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/239145129?accountid=15182 Colin Pitchfork: DNA evidence snared child rapist who killed my sister please do not let him go free; Colin Pitchfork was the first criminal in the world to be convicted on DNA evidence and was jailed for life in 1988 for killing two schoolgirls.(2015, May 5) Irishmirror.ie, Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic Butler, J. M. (2010). Fundamentals of Forensic DNA Typing. London: Academic Press. Peter Cheney, T. S. (1991, Oct 05). GENETIC FINGERPRINTING legal breakthrough inexact science? Toronto Star Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/436502141?accountid=15182 Baird, R. [Ronald Baird]. (2016, August 11). True crime stories about Colin Pitchfork Code of a Killer. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deoZEm1e8TIt=27s. Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V., and Thein, S. L. (1985a). Individual-specific fingerprints of human DNA. Nature 316: 76-79.

An Analysis of Coleridges Kubla Kahn Essay -- Coleridge Kubla Khan Es

An Analysis of Coleridge's "Kubla Kahn"      Ã‚   Although the form of "Kubla Kahn" is beautiful, it is complex. The rhyming patterns are quite complicated; the first stanza, for instance, rhymes in the pattern abaab ccdede. Coleridge's patterns of alliteration are also involved: He will sometimes use the sound at the beginning of one syllable as the sound at the beginning of the next syllable, as in "Xanadu did" in line one, "miles meandering" in line 25, and "deep delight" in line 44. He also alliterates vowels, not only consonants, to produce a rhythmic singsong effect.    Although the form and the beautiful language in "Kubla Kahn" were all that I could appreciate when I first read the poem, I have since come to realize that the poem has a complex symbolic pattern, as well. My own analysis may seem to be paltry when faced with the fact that there have been thousands of criticisms of this poem published, some comprising entire volumes. But the very quantity of criticism may serve as an argument that any interpretation of the poem is really an investigation of the writer of the criticism. That is to say, the poem has no outward meaning, or at least that the meaning put in by the author is of secondary importance. The subtitle of "Kubla Kahn" reads "Or a Vision in a Dream." Dreams may or may not have symbolic meaning, but it is doubtful that anyone intentionally designed symbolic meaning specifically for an individual dream.    My reading of "Kubla Kahn" depends on a biographical detail from Coleridge's life. Coleridge was an opium addict for years, and Appelbaum, an editor of a collection of romantic poetry, claims that "some of his [Coleridge's] poems reflect the anguish this caused." (Appelbaum viii) Coleridge... ...s a change in the author's attitude. Whereas he may have previously been supposed to be merely an opium visionary -- a weak person who lives outside the everyday reality that the rest of us inhabit -- he is revealed here to be a creator, a strong individual, as well. Coleridge is here identifying himself with Kubla Kahn. The Kahn decreed a stately pleasure dome, while Coleridge created a poem that is equated with the dome. "Kubla Kahn" is Coleridge's attempt to rise above what many people assume drug addicts to be and to show himself to be a strong creator, on a level with an emperor who founded of a great dynasty.    Works Cited: Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. "Kubla Kahn" in The McGraw-Hill Book of Poetry. Ed. Kraft Rompf and Robert DiYanni. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. Appelbaum, Stanley, Ed. English Romantic Poetry: An Anthology. Mineola: Dover, 1996.

Famous quotes for teachers Essay

I often wonder about teachers who educated famous people such as Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, and the like. Were these teachers specially qualified to inspire their students to achieve fame and success? Or were these teachers just plain lucky to have exceptionally talented students? Do some teachers have the rare quality of turning dust into gold? The answer may not be easy to find. Andy Rooney Most of us end up with no more than five or six people who remember us. Teachers have thousands of people who remember them for the rest of their lives. Haim G. Ginott Teachers are expected to reach unattainable goals with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times they accomplish this impossible task. Anonymous Leading a child to learning’s treasures, gives a teacher untold pleasures Anonymous Teachers don’t impact for a year, but for a lifetime. Chinese proverb Teachers open the door. You enter by yourself. Bill Muse I think a secure profession for young people is history teacher, because in the future, there will be so much more of it to teach. Howard Lester I have been maturing as a teacher. New experiences bring new sensitivities and flexibility†¦ Hippocrates I swear†¦ to hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture. Edward Blishen Life is amazing: and the teacher had better prepare himself to be a medium for that amazement.

Administrative Law

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[1]. 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[2]. 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,[3] 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,[4] 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[5], 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[6] 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[7], 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 respondent as public officers must have a public duty to perform imposed on them by the statute or any other law but it should not be a duty owed solely to the state but should be a duty owed to the individual citizen. The public duty imposed shou ld be of an imperative nature and not a discretionary one. The applicant must have locus stand that is he must have sufficient interest in the matter he is applying for lastly there should be no other appropriate remedy available to the applicant. In this problem the conditions are present as Ronaldo has demanded the performance for the renewal of license and the Director of Trade refused and he was not been given notice as noted in the case of Palm Beach Inn Ltd and Another v. Commissioner for Tourism and Two Others[8]. Also Mr. Toure was having a duty to perform on him thus to grant license. This duty was not of an imperative nature as the case of considering the application of license and not discretion as per the case of Re Mohamed Aslam Khan[9]. Also Ronaldo has a interest as he is an aggrieved person thus he has a locus standi as per the case of Alfred Lakaru v. Town Director Arusha[10]. Lastly there is no other appropriate remedy as the right to appeal is not indicated in the problem. Reasons in which Ronaldo can base in his application are violation of the rules of natural justice as per the case of Simeoni Manyaki v. Institute of Financial Management[11] Also there was irrelevant consideration as per the case of Fernandez v. Kericho Liquor Licensing Board. Error of jurisdiction as per the case of R v. Minister of Transport[12], failure to exercise discretion and legitimate expectation as per the case of Schmidt v. Secretary of Home Affairs[13] . PART B: Grounds upon which Cristiano Ronaldo would advance in his argument to convince the court to grant him remedies h e seeks are; Violation of the rules of natural justice, remedies can be issued where there is a violation of natural justice. In this problem Cristiano Ronaldo was not given a hearing thus the right to be heard before the renewal of his license was refused by the Director of Trade. The right to be heard is derived from the Latin maxim ‘audi alteram partem’, which simply means hear the other side. Under this the person to be affected by the decision of the administrative body must be given a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself for example in the case of R v. University of Cambridge[14], the applicant was deprived of his degree on allegations of misconduct but no notice was given to him. The court quashed the decision for the breach of the rules of natural justice. Ronaldo was not given any prior warning by the Local licensing authority Also there is hearing thus the must be given a fair opportunity to present his case and contradict any statement prejudicial to his interests. In this problem Ronaldo was not given a hearing for example in the case of Felix Bushaija and Ot hers v. Institute of Development Management Mzumbe and Others[15]; in this case the students were expelled from the institution without a hearing. They made application for prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition to quash the decision to expel them and affording the students the right to be heard. The remedies ware awarded basing on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. Another ground is legitimate expectation; this ground is evoked when an individual was affected by an adverse decision of the administrative body without being heard. In this problem the Director of Trade refuses the renewal of business license to Ronaldo in which he was having expectations that the license was to be renewed as it in other years the respective administrative authority denies to grant the same to that individual, without availing him with a hearing and good reasons. In the case of Schmidt vs. Secretary of Home Affairs,[16] it was held that the rules of natural justice also protect any legitimate expectation of a person of which it would be unfair to deprive him without hearing of what he would have to say. There is failure to exercise jurisdiction as there is dictation or abdication. Acting under dictation happen when an authority acts under the dictation of a superior authority which in fact was not what was intended by the statute. This ground is clear as the Director of Trade, Mr. Koure Toure, was acting from firm instructions of Thiery Henry the influential councilor at the city hall. For example in the case of Cader vs. Commissioner for Mosque,[17] in this case a board was having power to appoint trustee of mosque they consulted the member of Parliament who supplied the list of names including his own name the board later endorse the names supplied by the Member of Parliament. The court held that the decision of the Board was null and void because it was made by an outsider. Also Mr. Koure Toure, the Local licensing Authority have considered irrelevant matters and leaving out relevant matters. The statement that the license is not renewable on the grounds of irresponsible behavior of the applicant and that he does not respect his elders and consequently not being fit to hold a license, is purely a consideration of irrelevant matters which omits the principle that it is only the relevant matters that are to be considered by any administrative body. If the authority takes into account only irrelevant or extraneous considerations, the exercise of that power will be ultra vires and the action termed as bad. For instance, in the case of Hukam Chand vs. Union of India,[18] upon the petitioner’s phone disconnection on the grounds of it being used for illegal trading, the Supreme Court held that it was an extraneous consideration and an arbitrary exercise of power by the authority. Likewise, in the case of Re:Bukoba Gymkhana Club,[19] in this case the court ruled that the refusal for the renewal of the license by the Licensing Authority on the ground that the club was discriminatory by looking in its composition was ultra vires due to irrelevant consideration In addition to that the decision made by the Director of Trade as the Local Licensing Authority was unreasonable and no reasonable authority will make such a decision of refusing the applicant’s renewal of business license on the ground of irresponsible behaviour and that he did not respect his elders. In the case of Kruse vs. Johnson,[20] the local authority passed the by law prohibiting any person from music and singing in any public place or highway within 50 yards of any dwelling house the court nullified the by law on the ground of unreasonableness and therefore ultra vires. Error of jurisdiction, this happens when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. This is due do the fact that Mr. Thierry Henry assumed jurisdiction and give firm instructions to the Director of Trade not to renew Ronaldo’s license under any circumstance. In the case of R v. Minister of Transport[21], it was held that even though the minister was not empowered to revoke the license he passed an order of revocation of license. The decision was quashed. Convincingly Cristiano Ronaldo should be granted the remedies as prayed for due to the grounds afore mentioned the aim being to keep the Local Licensing Authority within the limits of its jurisdiction. Administrative Law 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[1]. 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[2]. 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,[3] 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,[4] 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[5], 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[6] 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[7], 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 respondent as public officers must have a public duty to perform imposed on them by the statute or any other law but it should not be a duty owed solely to the state but should be a duty owed to the individual citizen. The public duty imposed shou ld be of an imperative nature and not a discretionary one. The applicant must have locus stand that is he must have sufficient interest in the matter he is applying for lastly there should be no other appropriate remedy available to the applicant. In this problem the conditions are present as Ronaldo has demanded the performance for the renewal of license and the Director of Trade refused and he was not been given notice as noted in the case of Palm Beach Inn Ltd and Another v. Commissioner for Tourism and Two Others[8]. Also Mr. Toure was having a duty to perform on him thus to grant license. This duty was not of an imperative nature as the case of considering the application of license and not discretion as per the case of Re Mohamed Aslam Khan[9]. Also Ronaldo has a interest as he is an aggrieved person thus he has a locus standi as per the case of Alfred Lakaru v. Town Director Arusha[10]. Lastly there is no other appropriate remedy as the right to appeal is not indicated in the problem. Reasons in which Ronaldo can base in his application are violation of the rules of natural justice as per the case of Simeoni Manyaki v. Institute of Financial Management[11] Also there was irrelevant consideration as per the case of Fernandez v. Kericho Liquor Licensing Board. Error of jurisdiction as per the case of R v. Minister of Transport[12], failure to exercise discretion and legitimate expectation as per the case of Schmidt v. Secretary of Home Affairs[13] . PART B: Grounds upon which Cristiano Ronaldo would advance in his argument to convince the court to grant him remedies h e seeks are; Violation of the rules of natural justice, remedies can be issued where there is a violation of natural justice. In this problem Cristiano Ronaldo was not given a hearing thus the right to be heard before the renewal of his license was refused by the Director of Trade. The right to be heard is derived from the Latin maxim ‘audi alteram partem’, which simply means hear the other side. Under this the person to be affected by the decision of the administrative body must be given a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself for example in the case of R v. University of Cambridge[14], the applicant was deprived of his degree on allegations of misconduct but no notice was given to him. The court quashed the decision for the breach of the rules of natural justice. Ronaldo was not given any prior warning by the Local licensing authority Also there is hearing thus the must be given a fair opportunity to present his case and contradict any statement prejudicial to his interests. In this problem Ronaldo was not given a hearing for example in the case of Felix Bushaija and Ot hers v. Institute of Development Management Mzumbe and Others[15]; in this case the students were expelled from the institution without a hearing. They made application for prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition to quash the decision to expel them and affording the students the right to be heard. The remedies ware awarded basing on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. Another ground is legitimate expectation; this ground is evoked when an individual was affected by an adverse decision of the administrative body without being heard. In this problem the Director of Trade refuses the renewal of business license to Ronaldo in which he was having expectations that the license was to be renewed as it in other years the respective administrative authority denies to grant the same to that individual, without availing him with a hearing and good reasons. In the case of Schmidt vs. Secretary of Home Affairs,[16] it was held that the rules of natural justice also protect any legitimate expectation of a person of which it would be unfair to deprive him without hearing of what he would have to say. There is failure to exercise jurisdiction as there is dictation or abdication. Acting under dictation happen when an authority acts under the dictation of a superior authority which in fact was not what was intended by the statute. This ground is clear as the Director of Trade, Mr. Koure Toure, was acting from firm instructions of Thiery Henry the influential councilor at the city hall. For example in the case of Cader vs. Commissioner for Mosque,[17] in this case a board was having power to appoint trustee of mosque they consulted the member of Parliament who supplied the list of names including his own name the board later endorse the names supplied by the Member of Parliament. The court held that the decision of the Board was null and void because it was made by an outsider. Also Mr. Koure Toure, the Local licensing Authority have considered irrelevant matters and leaving out relevant matters. The statement that the license is not renewable on the grounds of irresponsible behavior of the applicant and that he does not respect his elders and consequently not being fit to hold a license, is purely a consideration of irrelevant matters which omits the principle that it is only the relevant matters that are to be considered by any administrative body. If the authority takes into account only irrelevant or extraneous considerations, the exercise of that power will be ultra vires and the action termed as bad. For instance, in the case of Hukam Chand vs. Union of India,[18] upon the petitioner’s phone disconnection on the grounds of it being used for illegal trading, the Supreme Court held that it was an extraneous consideration and an arbitrary exercise of power by the authority. Likewise, in the case of Re:Bukoba Gymkhana Club,[19] in this case the court ruled that the refusal for the renewal of the license by the Licensing Authority on the ground that the club was discriminatory by looking in its composition was ultra vires due to irrelevant consideration In addition to that the decision made by the Director of Trade as the Local Licensing Authority was unreasonable and no reasonable authority will make such a decision of refusing the applicant’s renewal of business license on the ground of irresponsible behaviour and that he did not respect his elders. In the case of Kruse vs. Johnson,[20] the local authority passed the by law prohibiting any person from music and singing in any public place or highway within 50 yards of any dwelling house the court nullified the by law on the ground of unreasonableness and therefore ultra vires. Error of jurisdiction, this happens when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. This is due do the fact that Mr. Thierry Henry assumed jurisdiction and give firm instructions to the Director of Trade not to renew Ronaldo’s license under any circumstance. In the case of R v. Minister of Transport[21], it was held that even though the minister was not empowered to revoke the license he passed an order of revocation of license. The decision was quashed. Convincingly Cristiano Ronaldo should be granted the remedies as prayed for due to the grounds afore mentioned the aim being to keep the Local Licensing Authority within the limits of its jurisdiction.