Advocatespedia

Expressio Unius Est

Exclusio Alterius

==

Heading text

==

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

Introduction: -
 Interpretation
of Statutes refers to,
‘what the Judiciary
understands from the
statutes enacted by the
Legislation.’ It refers to
mean, how the court looks
at the statute and
determines what it actually
wants to explain. Statute
is the starting point in
interpretation. The term
statute refers to all the
enacted laws originating
from a sovereign source. It
is the function of
Legislature to enact the
statutes. Once the
legislature has enacted
laws it has no longer
concern with it, since it
becomes functus officio
i.e. it has performed its
function. Further it is the
function of the Judiciary
to interpret those enacted
statutes.
The expression
‘to interpret’ means to
explain or to bring out the
meaning. The object of all
interpretation is to
ascertain and give effect
to the intention of the
legislation whether express
or implied. The objective
of the court is not only
merely to read the law but
is also to apply it in a
meaningful manner to suit
from case to case and
provide true justice.
Interpretation is done with
the help of certain well
established rules. These
rules include Principal
Rules of Interpretation &
 Subsidiary Rules of
Construction.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius is

one of the subsidiary rule of
construction.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: -

The above mentioned term

is a Latin maxim. The
literal meaning of this
maxim is that, ‘the express
mention of one thing
implies the exclusion of
another.’
 Illustration: - It is a
general policy that weekend
i.e. Saturdays’ & Sundays’
are holidays. Hence, where
a Company expressly
provides that Sunday is a
holiday, it is implied that
Saturday is a working day.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a

Latin phrase that says “express
mention and implied exclusion” which
means express mention of one thing
excludes the other thing.
 When
something is expressly
mentioned in a statute it
leads to a presumption that
the things which are not
specified in the statute
are excluded. The
expressio... rule will not
apply where the intention
of the legislature clearly
reveals that the express
mention of one thing should
not exclude the others.
There can be no implied
exclusion where the
statutory language is plain
and the meaning is clear.
The principle is to be used
only as a means of
ascertaining the
legislative intent where it
is doubtful and not as
means of defeating the
apparent intent of the
legislature (Crawford, pp.
335-336).

Some Cases Related

to the Maxim:
a) It was observed in (Calcutta Tpt.
Society v. State of Punjab, 1962); that
this rule may be applied only when in
the natural association of ideas, the
contrast between what is provided and
what is left out leads to an inference
that the latter was intended to be
excluded; it may accordingly be held
inapplicable if there exists a plausible
reason for not including what is left out.
b) It was observed in (R v. Midland Rly.
Co, 1855); This case was concerned
with the Poor Relief Act, 1601. Sec 1 of
this Act imposed a poor rate on the
occupiers of “lands”, houses, tithes
and “coal mines”, the same word
was similarly limited as not including
mines other than coal mines. The
mention of one kind of mine showed
that the legislature understood the word
“land”, which would usually
comprehend all kinds of mines as here
not including any. c) In (San Pablo
Manufacturing Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
2006) Facts: San Pablo Manufacturing
Corporation is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of milling,
manufacturing and exporting of
coconut oil and other allied products. It
was assessed and ordered to pay by
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
miller’s tax and manufacturer’s sales
tax, among other deficiency taxes, for
taxable year 1987 particularly on
SPMC’s sales of crude oil to United
Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UNICHEM)
while the deficiency sales tax was
applied on its sales of corn and edible
oil as manufactured products. SPMC
opposed the assessments. The
Commissioner denied its protest. SPMC
appealed the denial of its protest to the
Court of Tax Appeals by way of a
petition for review. The CTA cancelled
SPMC’s liability for deficiency
manufacturer’s tax on the sales of
corn and edible oils but upheld the
Commissioner’s assessment for the
deficiency miller’s tax. SPMC elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals, CA
dismissed the petition. Issue: WON
SPMC’s sale of crude coconut oil to
UNICHEM was subject to the 3%
miller’s task. Held: Sec. 168 of the
1987 Tax Code was clear. The tax
exemption applied only to the
exportation of rope, coconut oil, palm
oil, copra by-products and desiccated
coconuts, whether in their original state
or as an ingredient or part of any
manufactured article or products, by
the proprietor or operator of the factory
or by the miller himself. Where the law
enumerates the subject or condition
upon which it applies, it is to be
construed as excluding from its effects
all those not expressly mentioned.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

References Calcutta Tpt. Society v.

State of Punjab, AIR 94 (Punjab 1962).
Crawford. (n.d.). The Construction of
Statutes. Thomas Law Book Company.
R v. Midland Rly. Co, 958 (4 E& B 1855).
San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
147749 (June 22, 2006).
Retrieved from
"https://advocatespedia.com/index.php?
title=Expressio_Unius_Est_Exclusio_Alterius&old
id=159548"

Last edited 1 year ago by Sanjana…