Friday, November 8, 2013

Tort Noots of Sir,Lecture By M. Mujahid Rana (Advocate High Court)Class LLB Part 1 Q.10

“  WHO CANNOT BE SUED”

                       (i)  Foreign Sovereign
                  Foreign Sovereign cannot be sued. It is a fundamental principle that king can do no wrong.
                     (ii) Ambassadors or Diplomats

                  Ambassadors or Diplomats cannot be sued in a country where they are posted. This immunity is available under the international law to them.

                               (iii)     Public Officials

                  Public officials cannot be sued in their representative capacity for the torts committed by them or by their representatives.

                            (iv)     Infants and Lunatics

                                           Infants and lunatics cannot be sued for torts committed by them.

                            (v)      Corporation

                                           The corporation incorporated under company’s ordinance 1984 cannot be sued for tort requiring physical though like tort of assault.

                            (vi)     Trade Union

                                           Trade union registered under industrial relation ordinance 2002 cannot be sued for torts committed by them in the course of industrial dispute.

                            (vii)     Crown

                                          King or his servant cannot be sued for torts committed by them.

Ø Position in Pakistan

                                    Under constitution of Pakistan 1973, the president, Prime Minister, Governors, Chief Minister and Minister cannot be sued for torts committed by them while they hold their office.

5.  CONCLUSION

                                    It is general principle that all persons have capacity to sue and liable to be sued. It is subject to certain limitation under the law of torts. There are some persons who cannot sue and cannot be sued for torts.

                                                    “ MAXIMS”

         Discuss the following maxims.
a)    Ubi Jus Ibi remediam.
b)    Injuria sine Damnum.
c)     Damnum sine injuria.


1.     UBI JUS IBI REMDESIUM

                             Meaning

                                Jus means legal authority to do or to demand something and remedium means the right of action. So it means there is no wrong without a remedy.

                      Importance of Maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

                                 The law of tort is said to be a development of the maxim ubi-jus-ibi Remedium. This maxim led the chancellor to intervene in the administration of justice in order to give a relief where the common law inadequate and to help the litigant by offering facilities in evidence and the procedure which the ordinary courts did not secure.

                           Conditions

a)     If a person has destroyed, lost or waived his right to an equitable remedy by his own act this maxim will not apply.
b)    It will not apply where the right and remedies fell within the exclusive domain of law.
c)     It will not apply if there is a moral infringement being incapable of enforcement.

                            Limitation

                            Following are the limitation of the maxim

a)     Where rights and remedies both with in the jurisdiction of common law.
b)    The courts are not authorized to question the act of state.

Ø Example

         If a person files a suit against sovereign or diplomat, he cannot be given relief because diplomats have immunity from such proceedings.




“Position in Pakistan”

                                 The maxim is applicable in Pakistan. The specific performances of the contract, ratification of the instrument, rescission of contract, cancellation of the instrument are its examples. The civil procedure code entitles a civil court to entertain all kinds of suit unless they are prohibited.

2.     INJURIA SINE SAMNUM

(i)    Meaning

     Injuria means injury and damnum means damage. So it means without damage. Every violation of legal right is actionable without the proof of damage.

(ii) Explaining

                                 There is a legal loss without actual loss. Every person has an absolute right to the protection of his body, property and reputation. Whenever a person sustains an injury he may bring an action without proving special damage.

(iii)Instances

1        Trespass to person
2        Trespass to property

(iv)Case law

Ashby vs. White 1703

Ø Facts

      The plaintiff give his vote in favour of a candidate x in parliamentary. The defendant white as returning officer excluded the vote of the plaintiff Ashby form the count that he was not a qualified voter. The candidate x was elected. The plaintiff field an action. 

Ø Held

                                 It was held that violation of legal right of the plaintiff was actionable though he had suffered no damage.
  


(v) Importance

                     The maxim injuria sine damnum signifies the general liability theory. In accordance with this theory every violation of a legal right would be a legal right would be a tort even though it is not tort.

3.     DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

(i)    Meaning

                                It means damage without violation of legal right.

(ii) Explanation

                                It is just reverse of injuria sine damnum. There is a legal loss without actual loss. It is not actionable per se.

(iii)Principles

                             Following are principles for this maxim.

a)    Proof of damage in itself is not actionable as a tortuous wrong in the     absence of proof of violation of some legal right.

b)    Proof of malice would not make an act as tortuous wrong if the act has been done in exercises of some legal right.

(iv)Case law

                              Mayor of Bradford vs. Pickles

Ø Facts

                               The plaintiff wanted to purchase some land for starting a scheme of water supply for the inhabitants of the town. The defendant wanted to sell his land to the plaintiff but the plaintiff corporation refused to purchase the land. Pickles the defendant sank a shaft on his land with the intention of diverting underground water from a spring that supplied the plaintiff corporation works. Resultantly the water which percolated through his land from corporation’s land on a higher level was discoloured and diminished when it passed again to the lower land of the corporation.
 
Ø Held

                          The case of the plaintiff was dismissed and it was held that pickles was not liable because he was increasing his lawful right.



4.     DISTINCTION BETWEEN INJURIA SINE DAMNUM AND DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

(i)    As to Nature

Ø Injuria sine damnum is an infringement of legal right without any actual loss.
Ø Damnum sine injuria is an actual loss without infringement of any legal right.

(ii) As to Procedure

1       Injuria sine damnum is actionable.
2       Damnum sine injuria is not actionable.

(iii)As to Proof

1             In injuria sine damnum proof of an infringement of a legal right is sufficient.
2             In damnum sine injuria proof of actual loss is meaningless in absence of any infringement of a legal right.

(iv)As to Remedy

1        There is always a legal remedy in injuria sine damnum.
2        There is no legal remedy in damnum sine injuria.

(v) As to Loss

1        Injuria sine damnum there is no pecuniary loss.
2        In damnum sine injuria there may be some pecuniary loss.

(vi)As to Right

1       Inuria sine damnum deals with legal right.
2       Damnum sine injuria deals with moral rights.


No comments:

Post a Comment