Legal Methods II Bycletus

Remarks:
This notes was partly prepared by Stephen John

(Assistant Lecturer-Mzumbe University) that is on
the development of negligence and logical and legal
reasoning.
The remaining part was prepared by Roggers Cletus
(Graduate of Mzumbe University)
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 2

COPYRIGHT
 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form of any means

including photocopying and recording without the
written permission of the owner. The written
permission must be obtained before any part of this
work is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
06/18/24 Roggers Cletus & Ndyanabo Cletus 3

PRESENTED BY STEPHEN, J
MZUMBE UNIVERSITY
MBEYA CAMPUS COLLEGE

INTRODUCTION
The second half of the 19th Century is generally
marked as the time when the law of negligence
was entering its second era of development.
This time witnessed the great expansion of legal
protection to persons who got injured in different
places.
The courts tried to use the so called antiquated
rules in order to break through the narrow
compass within which the law of negligence was in
its embryonic stage.
Introduction cont…
The development of the law of negligence took a
kind of a process which was circular in nature
There was a back and forth movement manifested
in three main steps which are:
1. Enunciation of the rule
2.The application of the rule to a future case
3.Establishment of the rule
The judges limited themselves to apply the
theories within the existing laws and noth
otherwise.

 The judges during this time were not ready to
open up the courts to a floodgate of litigation.
 Even in those cases where courts were seen to
have opened up a new ground of liability, such a
ground was bound to face a number of
qualifications.
 Judges were not ready to open up a pandora box.
They considered themselves to be content with
pigeonholes of liability rather than broader rules
of liability.
 It is said that because the development of the
law of negligence was not in the straight motion
to the extent that slowly the court developed
new theories apart from the strict ones and
invite other theories within their decisions as it
will be supported by different cases decided by
those courts.

1. LANGRIDGE V. LEVY
[1837]
FACTS
The father of the plaintiff brought from the
defendant a gun telling him that it was to be
used by himself and his sons. The defendant
falsely represented to him that the gun was
safe, good and secure. The gun turned out to be
unsafe, ill manufactured and dangerous and while
being used by the plaintiff, it exploded and
injured the plaintiff.
HOLDING; in favour of the plaintiff
Ratio decidendi
Where the plaintiff knowingly sold a gun to the
father for the use of himself and his sons and
had knowingly made a false warrant that it is safe
and secure while it was not, and on the basis of
such warrant, the plaintiff used it to his
detriment, the defendant is liable.

NOTE
This was the case decided on the ground or basis

of implied contract warrant and knowledge of the
user where the article is not dangerous in itself.

2.WINTERBOTTOM V.
WRIGHT [1842]
FACTS
A contracted with the Post Master General to provide a
mail coach to convey mail bags along a certain line of
the road. At the same time, B contracted to hire
horses to coach along the same line, at the same time.
B and his other co contractors hired C to drive the
coach. In the process of driving the coach C got
injured and brought an action against A for damages
due to injury sustained in the cause of driving the
coach while broke down due to latent defects in the
construction of the way.

HOLDING: judgement for the defendant
RATIO DECIDENDI: where there is no

contract or the injured party is no privy to the
contract entered, there is no action which can
be taken or maintained within the eyes of the
law.
This is the case in which the court decided
that the injured party can not be compensated
if he/she is too remote to be contemplated by
the defendant

3. LONGMEID V. HOLLIDAY
[1851]
 FACTS
The defendant a retailer supplied a lamp to the
plaintiff’s wife for the purpose of being used by
him and his wife. The lamp was defectively
constructed but the defendant could not have
not known that as he was not the manufacturer.
While using the said lamp, the lamp exploded and
severely injured the plaintiff’s wife.
HOLDING: The defendant not liable

 RATIO DECIDENDI:
Where in the ordinary cause of doing business
between one individual and another, a machine
that is not dangerous in itself but which might
become so by latent defect entirely unknown, is
let or given by one person to another, the former
is not answerable to the latter for subsequent
damage accruing from the use of it

 The court distinguished Langridge v. Levy,
this time on the ground that that was a case
of fraud. The court thus held that there is no
liability to third parties when a person
supplies under contract and without fraud a
thing not dangerous in itself but which
became so by a latent defect unknown to the
supplier, although discoverable by the
exercise of ordinary care.

4.GEORGE V.
SKIVINGSTON [1869]
 FACTS
The plaintiff purchased a chemical compound from
the defendant as a hair wash for the use of his
wife. The defendant represented it to be fit and
proper to be used for washing the hair. The
compound was so negligently and improperly
made. When the plaintiff’s wife applied it she
sustained injuries.

HOLDING: judgement for the plaintiff.
RATIO DECIDENDI: As between the defendant

and the wife, there was no contract. The case of
Langridge V. Levy was cited with approval where
the court said that if negligence is substituted for
fraud, the analogy between Langridge V. Levy and
the case at hand becomes complete
The case of Longmeid v. Holliday is distinguished

on the ground that in that case, there was no
negligence on the facts

NOTE
This is a case where the seller of the article that
caused injury was also a manufacturer of the
article and knew who the consumers were

5. HEAVEN V. PENDER
FACTS [1883]
The plaintiff was a workman employed by a ship
painter. The ship painter entered into the contract
with the ship owner whose ship was in the
defendant’s dock for the purpose of being painted.
The defendant, the dock owner supplied under a
contract with the ship owner, an ordinary stage to
be slung outside the ship to facilitate in painting
the ship. The ropes by which the stage was slung
had been scorched and were unfit for use. When
the plaintiff began to use the stage, the ropes
broke, the stage fell and the plaintiff was injured.

 HOLDING: Judgement in favour of the
plaintiff.
 RATIO DECIDENDI: Whenever one person is

by circumstances placed in such a position
with regard to another that every one of
ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with
regard to these circumstances, he would
cause danger of injury to the person or
property of the other, a duty arises to use
ordinary care and skill to avoid such a danger.

 NOTE
This is a case in which judges reached the same
decision but used not only different principles
but also different patters of reasoning.
Important for the future development of the law
of negligence was the decision of the minority
judge (Brett MR)
“Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to

the plaintiff”
6.FACTS
DERRY V. PEEK [1889]
The defendants represented in their prospectus
that their company had been given special
permission by an Act of
parliament to use steam power in propelling
tramways. The plaintiff relying on this
representation bought shares in the defendants’
company. The board of trade, however, refused to
consent to the use of steam power. Consequently,
the defendants company suffered heavy loss and
had to be wound up. The plaintiff brought an action
of deceit against the defendants

HOLDING:
The Court of Appeal held that, the defendants
were liable to make good to the plaintiffs the
loss sustained by taking the shares. The
defendants appealed to the House of Lords.
The Appeal was allowed and the order of the
court of appeal was reversed.

RATIO DECIDENDI
In an action of deceit, the plaintiff must prove
actual fraud that is a false representation
made knowingly or without belief in its truth,
or recklessly, without caring whether it be
true or false and intending the plaintiff to act
upon it

NOTE
This was/is the first case of negligent statements
causing financial loss.

7. LE LIEVRE & DENNES
V. GOULD [1893]
 FACTS
H. The owner of the land arranged wit D for loan
to be paid to L, a builder, on the security of a
mortgage of the land. The money was to be
paid by installments at certain stages in the
progress of buildings to be erected on the
land by L, and the stages were to be certified
by an architect. H. asked the defendant G
who was the an archtect and surveyor to issue
these certificates.

Facts cont…
In the process D transferred the mortgage to
LL after four installments had been paid on
certificates furnished by G. in due course, the
plaintiffs lost money on this transaction and
sued for damages.
The plaintiff filed their plaint alleged that H in
employing G to give the certificate, was acting
as the agent of the plaintiffs and that in
giving the certificate the defendant acted
fraudulently or negligently. The defendant
denied that he had been employed by D or on
his behalf to give the certificates. He also
denied the charge of fraud and negligence.
 In dealing with the previous authorities, the
court said the ratio decidendi in D v. P was a
wide one. Lord Esher cited his own opinion in
H v. P but distinguished it saying that it had
to be narrowed down in order to apply only to
situations where there is physical proximity
between the parties. He was of the view that
a person would only be liable if he was near
the person injured by which he meant
physically near the person. The court faced by
its own decision in H v. P circumvented it by
saying that the minority rule in H v. P was too
wide and the majority rule had no application
in the facts of the case at hand. The
defendant was held not liable.

 In appeal also the appeal was dismissed and
the judgement was given in favour of the
defendants.
 RATIO DECIDENDI: the question of liability
for negligence cannot arise at all until it is
established that a man who has been negligent
owed some duty to the person who seeks to
make him liable for negligence.
 OBITER DICTA: decision in the case of
Heaven V. Pender

8. NOCTON V. LORD
ASHBURTON [1914]
 FACTS
The plaintiff Lord Ashburton claimed damages
from Nocton, the defendant who was a lawyer
on the ground that he had suffered loss as
the result of improper advice which he had
been given by Nocton and had been induced to
act upon him. (he had been advised to release
part of a mortgaged security). As a result of
acting upon that advice, he suffered loss ( the
security released became insufficient).

The court of first instance held that there has
been no fraud and dismissed the action. The
court of appeal reversed that finding and
granted relief on the ground that Nocton had
been guilty of actual fraud. The House of
Lords held that the Court of Appeal had been
wrong in reversing the finding of fact of the
trial judge.

 Their Lordship went on, however, to hold that the
plaintiff had been entitled to succeed even in the
absence of actual fraud on the basis that duty
arising out of his fiduciary relationship with the
plaintiff and as the result of that breach the
plaintiff had suffered loss. The decision of the
Court of Appeal was therefore affirmed but on
different grounds
 Whether such a duty has been assumed must

depend on the relationship of the parties

NOTE: this is the case of a Lawyer-client
relationship: Fiduciary relationship and the law
of England.

9. DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON
[1932]
 FACTS
A friend bought a bottle of ginger beer made of dark
opaque glass and manufactured by the defendant and
gave it to his girl friend, the plaintiff. The plaintiff
drank some, then discovered that there were some
reminants of a dead snail in the bottle. As a result,
the plaintiff became seriously ill. The plaintiff sued
the defendant to recover damages for negligence by
the defendant in manufacturing the beer.

 Lord Atkin approved of Brett’s proposition in
Heaven V. Pender but discarded the limitation of
nearness or physical proximity put on it by court
of Appeal in L V. G
 He went on to state his famous neighbourhood
principle:
Acts or omission which any moral code could censure
cannot in a practical world be treated so as to
give a right to every person injured by them to
demand a relief. In this way rules of law arise
which limit the range of complainants and the
extent of their remedy.

 The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes
in law, you must not injure your neighbour and the
lawyer’s question “who is your neighbour?” received a
restricted reply you must take reasonable care to
avoid acts which you can reasonably foresee would be
likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my
neighbour?

 The answer seems to be persons who are so
closely and directly affected by my act that I
ought to have them in contemplation as being
so affected when I am directing my min d to
the acts or omissions which are called in
question.
 Lord Atkin further said that the test of
proximity introduced by Lord Esher in L v. G
should not be confined to physical proximity.

After propounding the neighbourhood principle, he
went on to hold that a manufacturer of products
which he sells in such a form as to show that he
intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in
the form in which they left him, with no
reasonable possibility of intermediate
examination and with the knowledge that the
absence of reasonable care in the preparation or
putting up of the products will result in injury to
the consumer’s life or property owes a duty to the
consumer to take that reasonable care.
 The defendant was thus held liable. The case was
decided by a majority of 3-2

IMPORTANCE OF THAT
CASE
 This is a case which finally establishes the
concept of negligence known in the law of torts
today. This notion introduces three aspects for it
to be completed. Negligence consist in the duty of
care, breach of the duty and damage. A person
alleging that another person was negligent must
necessarily prove these three things if he is to
succeed at all

10. FARR V. BUTTERS
BROS & CO [1932]
 FACTS
The defendants who were the manufacturers supplied a
crane, in parts to the builders. The deceased an employee
of the builders supervised the assembly of the crane.
While assembling the crane, he discovered a latent defect
in one of the parts but he started operating the crane
before rectifying the defect. He was killed when a jib
fell, the death being caused by the defects. The widow
sued the manufacturer of the crane in negligence.

 At the time this case was being heard in the
High Court, the case of D V. S had not yet
been decided. The court said that it would
have preferred to follow Brett’s decision in H
v. P as to suppliers of goods but as that was
minority rule, it was bound by the majority
rule in H V. P thus the trial court held that
the defendant was liable.

 The defendant then appealed to the court of
appeal. At that time the High Court had already
given the decision in D V. S, the Court of Appeal
thus considered the rule in D V. S but found
that it could not apply in that case because
whereas in D V. S the defendants were held
liable because the goods were manufactured in
such a condition that there was no reasonable
possibility of intermediate inspection of the
goods, in F V. B there was a reasonable
possibility of intermediate inspection.

Relying heavily on the material facts that the
defendant actually knew of the defect having
discovered it but continued to work with the
crane they allowed the appeal by the
defendants i.e. held that the defendants were
not liable.

NOTE
 This is a case where the principle of proximity
enunciated in D V. S could not be applied because
the husband of the plaintiff had had a chance of
intermediate inspection of the machines which
caused his death. Scrutton L J in this case makes it
explicit that English judges in making decisions are
controlled by the facts before them.

11. GRANT V. AUSTRALIAN
KNITTING MILLS [1936]
 FACTS
The plaintiff contracted a skin disease from wearing
a pair of woolen pants manufactured by the
defendant which were defective in that they
contained excessive quantities of a chemical
which, it was found, had been negligently left in
the process of manufacture. When the plaintiff
wore the pants after buying them, he contracted
dermatitis (a skin disease). The plaintiff sued the
defendant in negligence and the retailers in
contract.

 The retailers were clearly liable in contract. The
judgement of the court was concerned with the
liability of the manufacturers who had no
contract with the plaintiff.
 This was the decision of a judicial committee of
the Privy council which was not bound by English
decisions as it was not part of the English legal
system.
 The case came within the principle of Donoghue’s
case, decision against the respondents, appeal
allowed with costs

12. CANDLER V. CRANE
CHRISTMAS [1951]
 FACTS
the plaintiff invested money in a company relying on
accounts put before him accounts put before him
by accountants. The accounts were wrong and
negligently prepared. The plaintiff lost money and
sued the accountants.
HOLDING
The court of appeal held in favour of the defendant
in that they were not liable (majority of 2 to 1).

 RATIO DECIDENDI; there is no duty in
negligence as for negligent misstatement.
 OBITER DICTA; importance in this case is the

dissenting judgement of Lord Denning L . J which
sought to make it clear that since the House of
Lords’ decision in Donoghue V. Stevenson’s case,
no distinction existed between negligent
manufacture causing physical injury and negligent
statements causing economic loss.

NOTE;
This was the case of negligent statements
causing financial loss. It was the first case of
negligent statement after the decision of the
House of Lords in the case of Donoghue V.
Stevenson.

13. CLAYTON V.
WOODMAN [1962]
 FACTS
The plaintiff who was the bricklayer who was
employed by the first defendant a firm of
builders who had contracted with the second
defendant a regional hospital board to install a
lift and motor room in one of their hospitals. The
contract required that the work should be done
with directions of an architect third defendant.
To install a lift was necessary to demolish part of
the building.

 On the instruction of the architect the plaintiff
embarked in the installation in the process of which
he was injured and brought this action against the
defendants.
 The High Court held that the firs Defendant and

third defendants are liable. This was reversed later
by the Court of Appeal on grounds other than those
of Salmond J.

 NOTE
This was the case of negligent statement leading
to physical injury and not economic loss. The
problem before the court was to determine
which of the existing authorities on negligent
statements was to guide. Also the court had
to consider whether Donoghue V. Stevenson
was an appropriate authority.

14. HEDLEY BYRNE & CO LTD V.
HELLER & PARTNERS LTD [1963]
 FACTS
The appellants were a firm of advertising
agents. The respondents were merchant
bankers. The appellants case against the
respondents was that having placed on behalf
of a client X on credit terms substantial
orders for advertising time on the television
programmes and for advertising space in
certain newspapers on terms under which the
appellants became personally liable to the TV
and newspaper companies.

 They inquired through their own banker as to
the credit worthiness of X who were the
customers of the respondent.
 The appeal was dismissed and the case was
decided in favour of the respondents.
 When a mere inquiry is made by one banker of
another who stands in no special relationship
to him then in the absence of special
circumstances from which a contract to be
careful can be inferred,… there is no duty
excepting the duty of common honesty

LAW 121 LECTURE NOTES
PRESENTED BY
STEPHEN, J

LOGIC AND LEGAL REASONING

Things to be covered
1. Introduction
2. Forms and styles of reasoning
a) Forms of reasoning
(i) Logic
 Syllogisms and sorities
 Analogical (with authorities)
 Analogical (by examples)

Things to be covered cont…
(ii)Inductive: from particular to general (Major and)
minor premises
(iii) Deductive: from general to particular
(iv) Judicial Hunch or Intuition

b) Styles of Judicial Opinions
(i) Grand style
(ii) Formal style
3 Types of cases and styles of Judicial opinions

(a) Cases of first impression (Grand style)
(b) Clear cases (formal style
(c) Trouble/hard cases (rule of recognition choice)
4. The two basis activities in Law
( a) Law making: Legislature
( b) Law finding: Judge
5. Judicial law making

INTRODUCTION
It is clearly given in giving decision, it is of the paramount
importance to consider whether the decision is the one
advocated by the theories as noted from the beginning.
Therefore any legal decision must have the logic in them and
not mere decisions. Legal reasoning must sound properly and
well equipped with logical thinking for proper evaluation.

LOGIC
 Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict
principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this
than deductive logic".
 A particular system or codification of the principles of
proof and inference:

 The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with
the limitations and incapacities of the human

misunderstanding.

Generally, logic can be translated and explained as the
branch of philosophy which reflects upon the nature
of thinking.
It is an attempt to the issue that, “what distinguishes a
good argument from a bad one?”
Logic is the most fundamental branch of philosophy but
it does not deal with all kinds of reasoning and that is
why it does not fit to be the branch of psychology.

Logic is prescriptive ought and deals with the formulation of general
rules for correct reasoning.
It is clearly provided that in reasoning, reasons are provided as

evidence for certain conclusion which is expected to be established.
To this view, logic is a descriptive attempt to distinguish bad
reasoning from good reasoning or what is equivalent to good
inferences.

Logic cont…
Generally, logic is said to be the science of GOOD REASONS.
The reasons given are always expressed in a language. Logic
is therefore further expressed as the discipline which deals
with the relation between sentences.
Logic is the branch of philosophy which attempts to determine

when a given sentence or a group of sentences permits to
correctly make an inference.
SYLLOGISMS AND
SORITIES
 SYLLOGISM
 Syllogism can be defined to mean an instance of a form
of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two

given or assumed propositions (premises); a common or
middle...

 A syllogism contains three parts a major premise, a
minor premise, and a conclusion.

 The major premise states a generalization, the minor
premise relates a specific case and a conclusion is

deduced from the two premises.

Examples:
 Major premise: All dogs have four legs.
 Minor premise: All animals have four legs.
 Conclusion: All dogs are animals.
 Major premise: All members of XYZ sorority have high

grade-point averages.
 Minor premise: Harriet is a member of the XYZ Sorority.
 Conclusion: Harriet has a high grade-point average.
Syllogism cont…
 The categorical syllogism must in its major premise define
the category in question that it can be determined for certain
that the specific case cited in the minor premise will fall
within it.
 No term can be found in the conclusion that is not found in
one of the premises.
 The major and the minor premises cannot both be negative
statements
Syllogism cont…
Whenever the major or minor premise is a negative
statement the conclusion must also be a negative

statement.

Syllogism cont…
 Syllogism means a logical argument using three propositions. It has a
major and a minor reasoning and then there is a conclusion.
For Example All women are born as Super Hero's (major reasoning), I am
a woman(minor reasoning), so I am a super hero(conclusion).
 A syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition is
referred from two others of a certain form. A categorical syllogism
consists of three parts: the major premise; the minor premise, and; the
conclusion.

Syllogism cont…
 Type of formal logic argument in which only
three sentences (called Propositions) are employed: (1) the
major premise asserts a general relationship, (2) the minor premise
asserts something about a specific case, and (3) the conclusion
follows (is deduced from) the two premises. A famous
example states

Example;
"All men are mortal" (the major premise). "Socrates is a man" (the minor
premise). "Therefore, Socrates is mortal" (the conclusion). theory of
syllogism was developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322
B.C.).
Read more:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/syllogism.html#ixzz2OTb1l
Dj9

SORITY/SORITIES
 The term sority (singular) or sorities (plural) is
a form of argument having several premises

and one conclusion, capable of being resolved into a chai
n of
syllogisms, the conclusion of each of which is a premise
of the next.

INDUCTIVE REASONING
 Inductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning from particular to
general.
 It may be used in a broader sense to encompass all kinds of

reasoning in which the premises support, but do not compel, the
conclusion.
 inductive reasoning - reasoning from detailed facts to general

principles

 Inductive reasoning is the polar opposite of deductive
reasoning and is not generally accepted in science. While

deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific,
induction takes an idea from the specific to the general. This
goes against the principles of the scientific method.

 The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is
much more nuanced than simple progression from

particular/individual instances to broader generalizations.
Rather, the premises of an inductive logical
argument indicate some degree of support (inductive
probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is,
they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner,
there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to
individual instances. Inductive reasoning consists of
inferring general principles or rules from specific facts

 A well-known laboratory example of inductive reasoning
works like a guessing game. The participants are shown
cards that contain figures differing in several ways, such
as shape, number, and color. On each trial, they are given
two cards and asked to choose the one that represents a
particular concept. After they choose a card, the
researcher says "right" or "wrong."
 Though many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as
reasoning that derives general principles from specific
observations, this usage is outdated

 FOR EXAMPLE:
In case A, elements a, b, c, d and e were present and the

plaintiff succeeded. In case B elements a, b, c, d and e
were present and the plaintiff succeeded. In case C the
same elements were present and the plaintiff succeeded.
Therefore in all cases in which elements a, b, c, d, and e
are present, the plaintiff should succeed.

This is to say, the inductive reasoning gives the notion of two aspects, the
specific one and the general one but the logic is taken from the
reasoning in specific or particular to the general.
 This type of reasoning was given clearly in the case of Heaven v.

Pender especially in the reasoning by Brett MR
 Inductive reasoning is concerned with reasoning from “specific

instances to some general conclusion.”

 An inductive argument is an argument in which it is
thought that the premises provide reasons supporting

the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive
argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong
that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion
is false.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING
 A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the
premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a
deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support
for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it
would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

Deductive reasoning is concerned with reasoning from
a “general proposition or generally accepted truth to a

specific instance.
Deductive reasoning moves from general to particular.
It involves the way of syllogism

FOR EXAMPLE
 Major premise: All members of XYZ sorority have high

grade-point averages.
 Minor premise: Harriet is a member of the XYZ Sorority.
 Conclusion: Harriet has a high grade-point average.

Deductive reasoning is a closed system of reasoning.
It operates where you have already known rules either

those laid in cases or in statutes and facts of the case
are said to be subsume into the rule out of which a
conclusion is reached.

 There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the
lower shelf of the bookcase. There are no books anywhere else in
my bookcase. Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.
Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden. If Bergen is in Norway, then
Bergen is in Scandinavia. If Bergen is in Sweden, the Bergen is in
Scandinavia. Therefore, Bergen is in Scandinavia

Reasoning by analogy:
 Reasoning by analogy holds that since two items are assumed to be
similar in a number of aspects, they are probably similar in the
additional aspect under consideration.
Example: “Since artificial turf has worked well in stadium X, it should

also work well in stadium Y.”

LAW 121 NOTES ON STARE
DECISIS

STARE DECISIS
 Stare decisis is the Latin maxim which can be translated as "to stand by a decision," the
doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal
question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of
trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court
cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").
 stare decisis, (Latin: “let the decision stand”), in Anglo-American law, principle that a
question once considered by a court and answered must elicit the same response each
time the same issue is brought before the courts. The principle is observed more strictly
in England than in the United States. Since no court decision can have universal
application, the courts, in practice, must often decide that a

STARE DECISIS……
previous decision does not apply to a particular case even though the facts and
issues appear to be closely similar. A strict application of stare decisis may lead to
rigidity and to legal hairsplitting, whereas too much flexibility may result in
uncertainty as to the law.

STARE DECISIS……
AN EXPLANATION OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IN ENGLAND AND
WALES, HOW IT IS FORMED AND HOW IT WORKS.
Judicial Precedent
 Past judges create law for future judges to follow.
 Also known as Case Law.
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis

 English system of precedent based on Latin maxim Stare Decisis Et Non Quieta
Movere.
 This means “stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established”-
supports fairness and provides certainty in law.

STARE DECISIS……
 At the end of a case the judge makes a speech stating the decision and gives the
reason for the decision- considering arguments and facts then explain the principles
of law he is using to come to the decision.
 Ratio Decidendi = reason for deciding.
 This is the information that is used to help judges decide in future cases.
 Obiter Dicta= “other things said”- it is not binding precedent.
 Judges in future cases do not have to follow it – judge sometimes speculates on

what his decision may have been if the facts of the case were different.
 Legal reasoning may be put forward in future cases from this Obiter Dicta.
 Difficulty in distinguishing the ratio decidendi from the obiter dicta as the speech is
continuous.

STARE DECISIS……
Original Precedent
 If a point of law in a case has never been decided before then whatever the judge
decides will form a new precedent for future cases to follow.
 Judge finds case’s that are closest in principle to the one he is deciding on and may
decide to use similar rules
 This is called REASONING by ANALOGY.
 The judge is creating a new law.
 Hunter and others v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Docklands Development
Corporation 1995. Creating new law by analogy can be seen here. Refers this case
of tower obstructing a TV signal, to Bland v Moselely 1611, “which is a matter
only of delight and not of necessity.

STARE DECISIS……
Binding Precedent
 Precedent in an earlier case must be followed, even if the judge in the present case
disagrees with the legal principal.

 To be binding the cases have to be sufficiently similar as well as being made by a
senior court (sometimes the same level court).
Persuasive Precedent
 Precedent that is not binding but the judge may decide to consider it and decide it is
a correct principal – he is persuaded to follow it.

 Persuasion comes from these sources:

STARE DECISIS……
1. Courts lower in the hierarchy- the House of Lords agreed with and followed the
same reasoning as the Court of Appeal in deciding that a man could be guilty of
raping his wife. R v R 1991.
2. Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council- this court isn’t part of
the hierarchy, decisions not binding. Many members are also members of the
House of Lords therefore the decisions are respected and may be followed. The
Wagon Mound 1961.
3. Statements made Obiter Dicta (particularly House of Lords decisions) in R v
Howe 1987 House of Lords ruled that duress could not be a defence to murder.
As an Obiter Dicta statement they added that duress would not be available as a
defence

STARE DECISIS……
to attempted murder. It was followed as persuasive precedent in the Court of Appeal in R v
Gotts 1992.
4. A dissenting judgment: When a case has been decided by a majority vote (2-1 in the
Court of Appeal) the judge who disagreed would have given his reasons. In the event that the
case goes to the House of Lords or a later case, and the judge’s side with the dissenting
argument, they then decide the case in the same way. Dissenting judgment has persuaded
them to follow it.
5. Decisions of courts in other countries. -They have to use common law system. Applies to
Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

STARE DECISIS……
The Operation of Precedent and the Hierarchy of the Courts
 Every court is bound to follow any decision made by a court above it in the
hierarchy.
 In general, appellate courts (courts which hear appeals) are bound by their own past
decisions.

STARE DECISIS……
The European Court of Justice
 Since 1973 is the highest court in our legal system.
 For all points on European Law a decision made hear is binding on all other courts.
 Laws that are unaffected by European Law have the House of Lords as the
Supreme Court.
 European Court will overrule its past decisions if it feels necessary=flexibility.

STARE DECISIS……
House of Lords
 Decisions bind all other courts in the English legal system.
 Not bound by own past decisions, although it will generally follow them.
 Practice Statement 1966 announced change in using precedent- although the Lords
will follow it precedent. They will depart from a previous decision when it appears
right to do so.
 They do not reverse previous precedent whenever they think it is wrong, instead
in the general interest in the certainty of law they must be sure that there is some
very good reason before they act.

STARE DECISIS……
Court of Appeal
 Next level down from House of Lords.
 Two divisions: Civil and Criminal.
 Bound to decisions of House of Lords and European Court of Justice.
 Must usually follow past decisions of their own although there are
limited exceptions to this rule.
 Criminal Division is more flexible when it comes to the liberty of a subject.
 Decisions from one division will not bind the other division.
 Lord Denning thought that the Court Of Appeal shouldn’t have to follow the
House of Lords Precedent.

STARE DECISIS……
 Its own Precedent can be overruled if the law has bee “misused or misunderstood”.
Divisional Courts
 Queens Bench, Chancery and Family.
 Bound by decisions by European Court of Justice, House of Lords and Court of
Appeal.
 Bound by own precedent but has similar exceptions to that of the Court of Appeal –
overruling when the case involves someone’s liberty.

STARE DECISIS……
The High Court
 Do not have to follow their own decisions but usually will do so.
 Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries plc 1984, it was held that where
there were two earlier decisions that conflicted, then, provided the first decision
had been fully considered in the later case, that decision should be followed.
Inferior Courts
 Crown Court, County Court and the Magistrates’ Court.
 They are bound to decisions made by all higher courts.
 Unlikely that they can create precedent.

STARE DECISIS……
Distinguishing, Overruling and Reversing
Distinguishing
 A method in which a judge can avoid using a past decision, which he would
otherwise have to follow.

 The judge finds that the material facts of the case he is deciding ae sufficiently
different for him to draw a distinction between the present case and the previous
precedent. He is not then bound by the previous case.
 Balfour v Balfour 1919 was a claim from a wife that her husband was in breach of
contract. It was decided that the claim could not succeed because there was no
intention to create legal relations.

STARE DECISIS……
 Merrit v Merrit 1971 was successful because the court held that the facts of the case
were sufficiently different in that, although the parties were husband and wife, the
agreement was made after they had separated as well as having the agreement in
writing.
 The cases were distinguished from each other and so the precedent from the first case
was not used.
Overruling
 A court in a later case states that the legal rule decided in an earlier case was wrong.
 Overruling occurs when a higher court overrules a decision made in an earlier case by
a lower court.

STARE DECISIS……
 House of Lords overrules decision by Court of Appeal.
 European Court of Justice overrules a past decision it has made.
 House of Lords use the power under the Practice Statement to overrule a past
decision of its own.

 Pepper v Hart 1993- the House of Lords ruled that Hansard (what is said in
Parliament) might be used in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament (what

certain words meant).
 This overruled the earlier decision in Davis v Johnson 1979 when the House had
held that it could not consult Hansard.

STARE DECISIS……
Reversing
 A court higher up in the hierarchy overturns the decision of a lower court on appeal
in the same case.

 E.g. the Court of Appeal may disagree with the legal ruling of the High Court and
come to a different view of the law.

 Reversing the decision of the High Court.
Read more: http://socyberty.com/law/judicial-precedent/#ixzz2QEDiCd3f

LAW 121 NOTES ON
PRECEDENTS

APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE IN ENGLAND
 The common law doctrine of precedent works on the basis of hierarchy of
authority. The core of the doctrine is that previous binding decisions of

superior courts within the same judicial hierarchy are accorded authority by the
courts lower in hierarchy (vertical obligation) and appellate courts are bound
by own decisions (horizontal obligation.
STARE DECISIS IN ENGLAND

 The doctrine of stare decisis in England takes place in two phases as follows;
 Before 1966 (The Old Rule)
 After 1966 (The New Rule)

BEFORE 1966 (THE OLD RULE)
 The House of Lords was the superior court in England.
 The decisions of the House of Lords bind all courts below it.
 The house of lords was bound by its own previous decisions.
 This has been stated in the case of BEAMISH V. BEAMISH [1895] VOL
9 HL 274 as well as LONDON STREET TRAMWAY CO. V.

LONDON COUNTRY COUNCIL [1898] AC 375
 Note: Obiter dicta by itself are not a precedent but it can be taken as
formation of the new rule.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE OLD RULE
(i) Decision in ignorance of statute

 Even though a court may know of a statute, yet it does not appreciate its
relevance to the matter, such a mistake is such incuriam as to vitiate the

decision.
(ii) Conflicting decisions

 The House of Lords is not bound by its own previous decisions that are in
conflict with one another. Such a situation can arise in two ways as
follows;

1) The conflicting decision may have originated at a time when the binding
force of the precedent was not recognized.
2) The conflicting may have arisen due to inadvertence that is in

forgetfulness of an existing precedent.
 Whenever a relevant prior decision has not been cited before the court,
the court must have acted in ignorance or forgetfulness of it, and the new
decision if given in conflict with the old it is given per incuriam and it is
not binding on a later court.

(iii) Public Policy

 A decision based on some public policy particularly commercial was not
binding if social conditions have changed.

AFTER 1966 (THE NEW RULE)
 The House of Lords can depart from its own previous decisions when it
appears right to do so. This has been the base Per Lord Chancellor in the
PRACTICE STATEMENT was given (1966) 1 W.L.R. 1234 or [1966]
VOL 3 ALL ER 77

APPLICATION OF PRECEDENT IN ENGLAND (THE
COURT OF APPEAL)
 In England we may success in the old version system of the court and
between the new versions of the court system. In England the court
decision were binding to that apex court to that particular time. The court
which is referred as the apex court is the House of Lords. The previous
decision or current decisions of House of Lords bind to the other courts as
well as the House of Lords itself.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ENGLAND
(a) House of lords decision is binding

 Exceptions:
1) Conflicting decisions.
2) Per Incuriam decisions.
BROOME V. CASS [1971] 2 QB 354

 The Court of Appeal was not supposed to follow the previous decision of
the House of Lords because it was given per incuriam.

(b) The Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions.

 The Court of Appeal of England is absolutely bound by its own decisions
and by those of older courts of co-ordinate authority for example The

Court of Exchequer Chamber. This has been given in the case of YOUNG
V. BRISTOL AEROPLANE CO. [1944] K.B. 718

Exceptions for not being bound by own decisions:
(i) If the decision is in conflict with another, it is bound to choose between
the conflicting decisions.
(ii) If the earlier decision of the court though not overruled, cannot stand
with the decision of the House of Lords.
(iii) If the decision was given per incuriam, that is, in ignorance of a statute
or rule having statutory effect which would have affected the decision had
it been brought to the notice of earlier court.

(iv) If the decision is disapproved by the Privy Council.
WORSESTER WORKS FINANCE CO. V. GOO [1971] VOL 1 ALL ER
The Court of Appeal is not bound to follow its own previous decision if It
was disapproved by the Privy Council.
(v) The Court of Appeal is not bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal.
They are courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction so they cannot bind each other.

THE PRIVY COUNCIL
 The Privy Council is not bound by its decisions. The decisions of the Privy
Council are only persuasive, that is, do not bind courts in English legal
system.

APPLICATION OF PRECEDENTS IN EAST AFRICA
INTRODUCTION
 The doctrine of precedent is fundamental in the process of judicial law
making in East Africa. The judicial concern with past and in particular
conditions in England is the outstanding feature of the decision making
process in the superior courts in East Africa. This concern largely
attributed to the colonial context in which courts in East Africa operated.
England being the mother country of the colonized territories of East
Africa provided the law which was to apply in these colonies.

APPLICATION OF PRECEDENTS IN EAST AFRICA
 The other factor for courts in England concern with past English decisions
relates to the professional training and countries of origin of the judges of

the superior courts in colonial East Africa. These judges were mainly
English so they were strongly influenced by English practice and decisions
and they felt at home with their application in East Africa.

PRIVY COUNCIL
 Privy Council was the apex of the judicial pyramid in East Africa
and other British Colonies and dependencies. It was established as
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by the Judicial
Committee Act of 1833 by King William IV (the forth), as
permanent committee of legal experts to hear appeals from the
British colonies and to dispose other matters as referred to them by
His Majesty from time to time. The Privy Council was therefore not
a court of law but an advisory body. There are two situations on the
applicability of the Privy Council as follows;

BEFORE ABOLITION OF APPEALS TO THE PRIVY
COUNCIL (BEFORE 1966)
 Before the East African states abolished appeals to the Privy Council its
decisions were binding on the courts in East Africa. The origin of the
decisions didn’t matter as the law was considered uniform in respect of:
(i) Pronouncements on the Common Law,.
(ii) Pronouncement of Mohamedan Law.

 This has been decided in the case of SHALO V. MARYAM [1967] E.A.
409

AFTER ABOLITION OF APPEALS TO THE PRIVY
 After the independence of East African Countries divergent views

prevailed over whether the independence of these countries fired the
courts from the authority of Privy Council’s decisions.
1) For practical reasons the fear of reversal on appeal by Privy Council after
abolition was no longer there.
2) The constitutions of the newly independent East African states by

maintaining the “existing laws” it meant also that Privy Council decisions
were included.

 This was given in the case of RASHID MOLEDINA V. HOIMA
GINNERIES [1967] E.A AT PP 656-657
 The other controversial issue is whether the East African Court of Appeal
had inherent powers to depart from its own previous decisions as did the
Privy Council. The answer to this question came from the decision of
Newbold, V.P., in the case of DODHIA V. NATIONAL &
GRINDLAYS [1970] E.A 195 B as follows;

 “…His lordship affirmed that no decision of the Privy Council or of any
English Courts or of any foreign courts is binding on the East African
Court of Appeal and the East African Court of Appeal inherited the
flexibility of the Privy Council to depart from it own decisions when it
appears right to do so…”

ENGLISH DECISIONS IN EAST AFRICA
 The orthodox doctrine of precedent as adopted in East Africa didn’t cover

decisions of the courts of England which were not structurally connected
with the judicial systems of East Africa. The main considerations which
influenced judicial attitudes in East Africa were as follows;
I. The use of decisions of English courts by judicial personnel trained in the

common law tradition.
II. The adoption of the English common law and doctrine of equity as the
basis of the legal systems established by the British colonial
administration.

ENGLISH DECISIONS IN EAST AFRICA
 English law was received in East Africa through the general and the
special reception clauses in the Order-in-Council. This is seen in KIRIRI

COTTON CO. V. DEWANI [1958] E.A. 239 as follows;
“…His Lordship observed in this case that ‘ established decisions’ on the

common law and doctrines of equity of superior courts in England given
before reception date are binding in East Africa but after independence
there were in persuasive in nature….”

DECISIONS ON STATUTES IN PARI MATERIAL
 Statutes in pari material were model statutes in force in East Africa during
the period of British rule which were derivered from English legislation
either directly or by way of India. It would seem natural that in interpreting
the model statutes, East African courts should look to the interpretation
given to that statute in the country of origin as well as in the other
countries with similar statute.

BEFORE INDEPENDENCE
 English decisions were binding on East African Courts in the interpretation
of local statute in pari materia. This has been decided so in the case of
THIMBLE V. HILL [1879] A.C. 342 that there might be local conditions
which make the English construction inappropriate, but East African courts
cited with approval the need to preserve the unity of English law
throughout the empire.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE
 After independence there were two views on the status of English decision
interpreting statutes in pari materia as follows;
(i) Those decisions are binding

 That English decisions on statute pari materia are binding. This was the
view of Spry. J, in the case of RASHID MOLEDINA V. HOIMA

GINNERIES [1967] E.A 645 as follows;

AFTER INDEPENDENCE
“…His Lordship when interpreting the Arbitration Act of Kenya which was
derived from English Arbitration Act of 1889 reiterated that respect must
be shown to English decisions interpreting a similar statute because
English legislature enacted the Kenyan statute with knowledge of those
English decisions…”
 In other words this was given when Kenya legislation was passed
derivered from England. Then court decisions which was given in England
in interpretation of a statute then will be used the same in Kenya simply
because the legislation was originated from England. Refers also the
following case;
AFTER INDEPENDENCE
 TANGANYIKA GARRAGE V. MARCEL G. MAFURUKI [1975] LRT

23
 MTATITO MWITA V. MWITA MARIANYA [1968] HCD
(ii) English decisions are not binding.

 English decisions on statute pari materia are not binding. This was
expresses by the East African Court of Appeal in the case of NATIONAL
GRINDLAYS BANK V. VALLABHJI [1966] E.A 186 as follows;
“…English decisions on statute pari materia were not binding and to be

followed there must be consistent of interpretations…”

AFTER INDEPENDENCE
Conditions to be followed:
1) The decisions are not.
2) The decisions must disclose the consistent interpretation of the provision.
 For instance the issue of postal rule in England and Tanzania are differing.
So any decision given on postal rule cannot be followed by Tanzania
simply because it is inconsistent with our statute.
 Refer also the case of NEW GREAT INSURANCE V. CROSS [1966]
E.A OR [1965] ALR COMM. 449

APPLICATION OF PRECEDENT IN TANZANIA
 The Union Constitution of 1977 as amended in 1984 made provisions for
the establishment of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. There was another

Act enacted for the establishment of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania that
is The Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1979. The Court is therefore the final
Court for appeals originating from Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar in all
matters except Islamic law and disputed between Mainland and Zanzibar
governments over the application and interpretation of the Union
Constitution. In discussing stare decisis and its applicability in Tanzania it
is better to cite the illustrative decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania

 in the case of JUWATA V. KIUTA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1987
as also reported in the Tanzania Law Reports as JUMUIYA YA

WAFANYAKAZI TANZANIA v KIWANDA CHA UCHAPISHAJI
CHA TAIFA [1988] TLR 146
 In this case the Chief Justice, Nyalali, overruled a previous per incuriam
decision of the court in the case of ZAMBIA TANZANIA ROAD

SERVICES V J.K. PALLANGYO CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 1982
 In determining the matter courts interalia states the following; (principles
laid down)

 Decisions of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania are normally binding on the
Courts but as a final court of appeal it is free to depart from such a

decisions when it appears right to do so.
 The Court of Appeal of Tanzania is not bound to follow a decision of its
own if it satisfied that the decision was given per incuriam.

 Decisions of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania are binding upon any
tribunal by virtue of the common law doctrine of precedent.

LEGAL METHOD

BILL DEFINED
 A Bill in its ordinary meaning simply means a new law in the making. But
in its Parliamentary meaning, it means a draft of a proposed Act of

Parliament which, when passed by the National Assembly and assented to
by the President, becomes the law of the land. It may be introduced in the
House by a Government, Minister or by a Private Member.
 This means that there are two types of Bills, namely Government Bills
which are introduced into the Assembly by a Minister or Attorney-General,

and Private Member’s Bills which are

BILL DEFINED
introduced into the Assembly by a Member of Parliament who is not a

Minister or the Attorney-General.
 Before a Government Bill is introduced into the Assembly, it goes through
a lengthy process of consultation and decision-making at Ministerial level,

Permanent Secretaries level and finally the Cabinet.

PUBLICATION OF BILLS
 After the Bill has been approved by the Cabinet, (in the case of government
bills) it is published in the official Gazette with a statement of its objects

and reasons, signed by the Minister responsible for introducing the bill in
the National Assembly. It must be published in at least two issues of the
gazette at intervals of not less than seven clear days. The first publication of
a Bill must contain its full text, and must be published at least twenty-one
days before it is introduced in the National Assembly for first reading.

PUBLICATION OF BILLS
 The second publication of the Bill is deemed to have been made by the
insertion of a notice in the Gazette naming the title of the Bill, plus the
number and date of the Gazette in which it was first published.

BILL UNDER CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY
 The above mentioned procedure for publication may be dispensed with in
respect of a government bill, if a certificate under the hand of the President

is laid on the table of the Assembly by a Minister or Attorney-General
stating that the relevant Bill is of such an unusually urgent nature that time
does not permit compliance with the prescribed procedure.

PRIVATE MEMBER’S BILL
 As already mentioned, any Member of Parliament who is not a Minister
may introduce a Bill into the Assembly. Such bill is known as a private
member’s bill
 A member desiring to do so notifies the Clerk of the National Assembly of
his intention and submits the name of his Bill and describes fully the
objects and reasons of the Bill. As far as printing and publication is
concerned, the procedure is exactly the same as for government bills.

FIRST READING
 The first reading stage of any bill is done by the Clerk at the Table reading
the long title of the Bill before the Assembly. At this stage no discussion
takes place, instead, the Speaker refers the Bill to the appropriate Standing
Committee for consideration.
 The appropriate Standing Committee has no power to amend a Bill referred
to it but may request the Minister responsible for the Bill to introduce
amendment to the Bill in the Assembly.

SECOND READING
 After the Chairman of the appropriate Standing Committee has reported to
the Speaker that his Committee has concluded its consideration of the Bill,
the Speaker orders the Bill to be entered on the Order Paper ready for the
Second Reading.
 At this stage, the Minister in charge of the Bill moves a motion that the Bill
be now read for the second time, gives detailed explanations to the
Assembly before the Members start debating.

SECOND READING
 The proposals contained therein. The Minister’s speech is followed by a
statement of the Chairman of the appropriate Standing Committee, which

considered the Bill who outlines the views of the Committee regarding that
bill. The official spokesman for the opposition then takes the floor to give
the views of the official Opposition regarding the Bill. This is followed by a
general debate by the Members regarding the merits or otherwise of the bill.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
 On completion of the general debate, the Assembly immediately resolves
itself into a Committee of the whole House. The Clerk calls the number of
each clause in succession together with any amendments which may have
been made by the Minister in charge on the Bill. The Presiding Officer
(who at this stage is designated Chairman, not Speaker) puts the question
“that the Clause (or the clause as amended) be approved.

THIRD READING AND PASSING OF THE
BILL
 When the clauses of the Bill have been dealt with, the Assembly resumes
and the speaker returns to the Chair at the conclusion of the proceedings in
the Committee of the whole House. The Minister in-charge of the Bill then
reports to the Assembly that the Committee has considered the Bill, Clause
by clause and approved the same. Thereafter he requests the Assembly to
concur with the findings of the Committee. At this stage the Assembly
votes, and if the majority of the MPs give their consent then the Bill has
been

THIRD READING AND PASSING OF THE
BILL
passed by the House. If the majority of MPs say ‘No’ then the Bill has
been rejected by the Assembly.

ASSENT TO BILLS
 When a Bill has been passed by the Assembly, a printed copy of the Bill is
submitted by the Clerk of the National Assembly to the President for his
assent or other order if the bill is assented to then it becomes an Act of
Parliament.

WITHHOLD OF ASSENT
 In case the President withholds his assent to the Bill, he must return it to the
Assembly together with a statement of his reasons for withholding his

assent to the Bill. After the Bill is returned to the Assembly, it shall not be
presented again to the President for his assent before the expiration of six
months since it was so returned. In order for it to be presented again to the
President, it must be supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all
the Members of the Assembly..

WITHHOLD OF ASSENT
 If the Bill which was returned to the Assembly by the President, is

passed again by the Assembly with the support of not less than two-
thirds of all the Members of the Assembly, and is presented a
second time to the President for his assent then the President is
obliged to assent to the Bill within twenty one days of its being
presented to him, otherwise he must dissolve Parliament and call
for a new general election.

Grammatical/Logical aid to Interpretation of a Statute

GRAMMATICAL/LOGICAL AID TO
INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS
 This is simply means the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. So if
a statute stated it applies to lions and tigers without stating and other it would only
apply to lions and tigers and not leopards and cheetahs.
R. V. INHABITANT OF SEDGLEY [1831] 2 QB AD 65
 It was held that "Lands and coalmines" implicitly excluded other types of mines from
the scope of 'lands'.
 TEMPET V. KILNER [1846]
 It was held that “goods, wares and merchandise” did not include stocks and shares..

EJUSDEM GENERIS
 Things that are the same'. This is used when a statute includes list of items and an
'and similar items' clause. It should be noted that it may be ignored to achieve the
intent of Parliament.
 This applies where a statute contains a list of items followed by and 'other...'. When
the courts are determining what is counts as 'other' they will look at the context of
the things in the list. E.g.
 a statute which states it applies to lions, tigers, cheetahs and other animals would
apply also to leopards but not to a horse.

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
 This logical aid requires that in order to interpret the provision of a given statute, a
meaning of a word can be gathered from its context. That means the meaning of
doubtful word may be ascertained by a reference to the meaning of words associated
with it. Hence they may be ascertained by a reference to the meaning of words
associated with it. Hence they may be better understood from the nature of
words/phrases with which they associated.

CASUS OMISUS
 The court should interpret the word found in the statute as it is through given its
plane meaning (real meaning) without adding or subtracting anything which will
lead the court into legislation and not interpretation.
 SINGIDA REGIONAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED V. TANZANIA
POST TELECOMMUNICATION COOPERATION [1979] TLR NO. 11

REDDENDI SINGULA SINGULES
 A particular end modify the previously. In other words Reddendi singula singulis
(Refers only to the last) which means when a list of words has a modifying phrase
at the end, the phrase refers only to the last, example., firemen, policemen, and
doctors in a hospital.

Legal Methods II Bycletus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Methods II Bycletus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remarks:

This notes was partly prepared by Stephen John

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 2

 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be

reproduced or transmitted in any form of any means

06/18/24 Roggers Cletus & Ndyanabo Cletus 3

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 4

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 6

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 8

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 10

This was the case decided on the ground or basis

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 12

RATIO DECIDENDI: where there is no

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 13

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 14

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 15

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 16

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 17

RATIO DECIDENDI: As between the defendant

The case of Longmeid v. Holliday is distinguished

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 18

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 19

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 20

 RATIO DECIDENDI: Whenever one person is

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 21

“Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 23

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 24

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 25

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 26

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 27

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 29

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 30

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 31

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 32

 Whether such a duty has been assumed must

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 33

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 34

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 35

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 36

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 37

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 38

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 39

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 40

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 41

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 42

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 43

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 44

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 45

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 46

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 47

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 48

 OBITER DICTA; importance in this case is the

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 49

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 50

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 51

 The High Court held that the firs Defendant and

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 52

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 53

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 54

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 55

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 56

Tuesday, June 18, 2024 57