The legal issues before the court were both procedural and substantive.
Procedurally, the issue was whether the appellant followed proper procedure in commencing the action, and if not, whether this improper commencement deprived the court of the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Substantively, the issues to be determined were as follows:
- Whether the party with the requisite authority to execute a TCA was the Director General of the 1st respondent or the Minister of Tourism.
- Whether the actions of the Director General (in refusing to execute the TCA) were irrational and unreasonable.
- Whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation that the first respondent would execute the TCA based on the fact that a draft TCA had been prepared.
- Whether the MOU had in fact granted the appellant a right to conduct horse safari’s for a period of six months
- Whether the failure to give reasons for the refusal to grant the first appellant a tour operator’s license was a breach of statutory duty and malfeasance of public office entitling the appellant to damages.
- Whether the grounds of judicial review are cumulative.