Sunday 14 July 2019

Legal Maxims for Judicial service Exam

1) qui facit per alium facit per se :- Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term that means, "He who acts through another does the act himself." It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability."

2) Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet is a legal phrase that is seen used in the law of evidence. It means ‘a transaction between others does not prejudice one who was not a party to it’. Things done between strangers must not cause an injury to people who are not parties to such acts.

3) Allegata et probata is a Latin term meaning things alleged and proved. The allegations made by a party to a suit, and the proof adduced in their support. It refers to general evidence rules which requires that the proofs must correspond with the allegations.

4) Autrefois Acquit And Autrefois Convict.  The doctrine in a way is the rule again double jeopardy. Rule against double jeopardy means that a person cannot be tried for the same offence once again if he has been either convicted or acquitted in the trial relating to same offence.

5) Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant is a Latin term which means that fraud and justice never dwell or agree together. In other words, it means that law cannot exist with deliberate falsehood or fraud.
6) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una eteadem causa (no one shall be twice vexed for the same cause) is one of the two maxims on which on which the doctrine of res judicata in based.
7) Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire is a legal maxim, used in India, with the following meaning: A man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. A dying declaration is admitted as evidence is based on this maxim
8) "Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur" is a Latin legal maxim that refers to a law that grants or protects the right of a foetus to inherit property. ... Pursuant to this legal principle, the foetus is presumed to have been born for the purposes of inheritance.
9) Actio personalis moritur cum persona is a Latin expression meaning "a personal right of action dies with the person".
9) “The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable when a situation is projected where the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court.
10) Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term that means, "He who acts through another does the act himself." It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability.
11) Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant Definition: Latin maxim of interpretation: the provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one.
12) Simply translated, the term would mean “injury with no damages.” Damnum sine injuria refers to a legal situation in which plaintiff's right is not respected by another but where the breach of plaintiff's right does not cause damage, or at least not a calculable or admissible damage.
13) Injuria Sine Damnum is a legal maxim, which means that injury or loss or damage so caused to the plaintiff without suffering any physical injury or damage. It is a Latin term, where ‘Injuria’ refers to injury ‘Sine’ refers to without and ‘Damno’ refers to a property or any physical loss, therefore the term refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss’.  Here, in this case, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove the damages so suffered, he only has to prove that there is some legal damage suffered by him, that is the action so brought is actionable per se. Like for example, where A roams around B’s house without any justification then, in that case, there is a violation of the legal right of B and therefore this maxim is applicable. 
This maxim is well explained in the case Ashby vs. White[1]where the plaintiff was a qualified voter at a parliamentary election, while the defendant who was a returning officer in election wrongfully refused to take a vote of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff didn’t suffer any loss by such wrongful act as the candidate he wants’ to vote on the election, the legal rights of the plaintiff were infringed and therefore the defendant was held liable.
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment