Professional Documents
Culture Documents
[EXCEPT TO GOD].
ACTA EXTERIORA INDICANT SECRETA INTERIORA: THE OUTWARD ACTS SHOW THE
SECRET INTENTIONS.
ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA: ANY RIGHT OF ACTION DIES WITH THE
PERSON.
ACTORE NON PROBANTE, ABSOLVITUR REUS: AN ACTION NOT PROVED, ABSOLVES THE
GUILTY.
When the plaintiff/prosecution does not prove his case, judgment is for the
defendant/accused.
The same principle applies to an appellant if the judges are equally divided in their
decisions.
See Famuroti v Agbeke and Awomuti v Salami.
ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM: AN ACT OF GOD CAUSES LEGAL INJURY TO NO ONE.
The law holds no man responsible for the act of God ~Herbert Broom.
The loss from an injury caused thereby must be borne by the victim.
It refers to an injury, inevitable as a result of an act of God, which no industry can avoid or
policy prevent.
Supposing a storm causes Mr As car to land on, thereby damaging Mr Bs house, Mr B
cannot claim damages from Mr A.
See Omotayo v Arbuckie Smith & Co. Ltd.
ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA: AN ACT DOES NOT MAKE GUILT, UNLESS
THE MIND BE GUILTY.
The intent and the act must both concur to constitute a crime.
Similar to Nemo cogitationis poenam patitur: No one shall be punished for his thoughts
alone.
The existence of a criminal mind may be negated with the defences of: *Mistake *Accident
*Compulsion *Consent *Claim of right.
A lunatic may however be found guilty of crime, but will not be executed and only kept in
custody for lack of real intent [i.e. mens rea].
See R v Nasamu, Sweet v Parsely and The State v Adelenwa.
AFFIDAVIT: HE SWORE.
ARMA IN ARMATOS SUMERE JURA SINUNT: THE LAW PERMITS THE TAKING UP OF ARMS
AGAINST THE ARMED.
Mostly applied in insurance cases whereby the assured inflicts injury on himself, spouse
or property to make a fraudulent claim.
See Lek v Matthews and Cole v Accident Assurance Co. Ltd.
DOMUS SUA CINQUE EST TUTISSIMUM REFUGIUM: A MANS HOUSE IS HIS SAFEST
RETREAT.
The house of everyone is to him a castle/fortress for his safety, and defence against injury
and violence.
A house includes a rented house.
In R v Hussay, the tenant was justified to have shot his landlord who tried to forcibly eject
him after a quit-notice.
See also The Queen v Eyo and R v Ebi.
INTER ARMA, LEGES SILENT: IN THE MIDST OF ARMS, THE LAW IS SILENT.
First written by Cicero in his oration; Pro Milone, as Silent enim leges inter arma.
The laws will thusnot be silent in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat
different voice ~ChiefJustice William Rehnquist.
The clatter of arms drowns out the voice of the law ~Henry David Thoreau.
It applies between different states, during civil disturbances or a coup dtat.
INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITIUM: IT CONCERNS THE STATE THAT THERE BE
AN END TO LAWSUITS.
JUDEX NON REDDIT PLUS QUAM QUOD POTENS IPSE REQUIRIT: A JUDGE DOES NOT GIVE
MORE THAN THAT WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ASKS.
If a plaintiff claims the sum of 10 as debt from the defendant, the judge cannot grant
more even if evidence reveals its actually 15.
See Khawam v Elias and Horizon Ltd v Wasurum.
JUDICIS EST IUS DICERE, NON DARE: THE JUDGE DECLARES (EXISTING) LAW, AND DOES
NOT MAKE NEW ONES.
Under our constitution, the court can only interpret legislations: See Section 4 of CFRN.
See Abioye v Yakubu.
LEX NON COGIT IMPOSSIBILIA: THE LAW DOES NOT COMPEL THE DOING OF
IMPOSSIBILITIES.
The law which is founded on good sense and reasoning cannot possibly direct that
impossible things be done.
See: nemo tenetur ad impossible
MANDAMUS: WE ORDER.
NEMO DAT QUOD HABET: NO ONE GIVES WHAT HE DOES NOT HAVE.
Similar toNEMO BIS PUNITUR PRO UNO (EODEM) DELICTO No one should be twice
punished for one wrong.
Similar to the principle of Res judicata; in civil matters.
It states that nobody should be twice sued or prosecuted upon one and the same set of
facts, if there has been a final decision of a competent court.
However, an abortive or premature trial can be retried [see Windson v R].
In Connelly v DPP, the defendant tricked the judge by sending a dozen bottles of
champagne with the compliment of the plaintiff, hence winning the case. If realised, the
case could be re-tried on the ground of a mistrial.
NEMO DEBET ESSE JUDIX IN PROPRIA CAUSA: NOBODY OUGHT TO BE A JUDGE IN HIS
OWN CAUSE.
Or DO NOT PROSECUTE.
It is most often used in criminal cases.
It is called voluntary dismissal in civil cases.
Similar to it is declination of prosecution.
Its opposite is involuntary dismissal.
It is the prosecutors decision to voluntarily discontinue criminal charges either before trial
or fore a verdict is rendered.
Judges seldom challenge such declarations.
It is not a guaranteefor the impossibility of a later re-indictment and nor is it a protection
against double jeopardy as the merits of the case were not adjudicated.
Reasons: *Weak or insufficient evidence.
*Doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.
PLUS VALET UNUS OCCULATUS TESTIS, QUAM AURITI DECEM:ONE EYE WITNESS IS
STRONGER THAN TEN HEARSAYS.
Based on the principle that, at all times, justice must be manifestly seen to have been
done.
In law, hearsay evidence is the opposite of direct evidence.
Also, any evidence given in the absence of an accused is not admissible against him.
See R v Samuels and Onwocha v The state.
Hence, a person in authority may be punished for covering a very serious crime known to
him/her.
In English law, MISPRISION is an offence which is to conceal a treason/felony.
See R v Aberg.
QUI PARCIT NOCENTIBUS INNOCENTES PUNIT: HE WHO SPARES THE GUILTY, PUNISHES
THE INNOCENT.
For instance, the letting off of a rapist amounts to an ironical/literary punishment of the
victim for her agony, violation of dignity and molestation.
However, the sentence of cautioned and discharged is deemed a conviction and cannot
be equated with sparing the guilty.
QUI PECAT EMBRIUS, LUAT SOBRIUS: HE WHO SINS WHEN DRUNK SHALL BE PUNISHED
WHEN SOBER.
In Onuwaje v Ogbeide, the plaintiff warned the defendant not to enter his land warning
that it is his. The defendant went ahead to erecta building on the real estate; and then the
plaintiff claimed title to it.
See also Atanda v Ajani and Tewogbade v Adeolu.
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: THAT TO WHICH A MAN CONSENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
AN INJURY.