Jurisprudence Analysis "There is no prescribed constitutional relationship between the courts and the executive, but judges assert their inherent power, arising from the rule of law, to control the acts of the executive “ The issue begins by giving us an element of separation of powers when it states that there is no prescribed constitutional relationship between the courts and the executives. The concept of separation of powers proposed by Montesquieu, the French political philosopher, has three main criteria: (i) There are three main classes of government functions: legislative, executive and judicial. (ii) There are (or should be) three principal organs of government in a state: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. (iii) The concentration of more than one class of functions in one person or in one governing body constitutes a threat to individual liberty. For example, managers should not be allowed to make laws or rule on alleged violations of the law; it should be confined to the executive functions of policy making and implementation and general administration. The third proposition, said to be the most extreme and doctrinaire, is that the issue at hand appears to prevail using the rule of law, whereby judges are said to use it to assert their inherent power to review executive actions. Dicey[1] saw the rule of law as a central feature of the British constitution. He had his own idiosyncratic ideas about what the rule of law entailed, and his ideas were very influential for two generations. The concept is either...... half of the paper ......Edition) ------- ---------------------- ---------------------------- -----------[1] AV Dicey, "Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution" (10th edition, 1959)[2] H.A. Street, "Ultra Vires", 1 - 3[3] Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway (1880) 5 App. Cas. 473,478[4] Howard v Boddington (1877) 2 PD 203, 211[5] (1964) AC 40[6] Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Trading Board vKent(1970) 2 QB 19[7] R v Post-master General exp Carmichael(1938) 1 KB 651[8] R v boycott exp Keasley (1934) 2 KB 651[9] Hill v Ladyshore Coal Co. (1936) All ER 299[10] (1998) 114, LQR[11] R v Secretary of State exp Doody (1994) 1 AC 531[12] R v Secretary of State for Social Security exp Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (1997) 1 WL R 275