INTEPRETIVE JURISPRUDENCE

GUIDE FOR SCENARIO BASED QUESTIONS

1. Acknowledge limitation of rules (Introduction)
2. Explain importance of interpretive schools and how it fits (Key Points of Interpretive
School)
3. Propose principles to be applied
4. Cite Cases where principles have been applied
5. Conclude

INTRODUCTION
 There is no doubt that the entire exercise of adjudication is geared towards attaining
Justice.
 However, there exist instances where the law does not totally enable the attainment of
Justice.
 These instances may include :
 Our inability to conceive the true meaning of a rule as intended by the
draftsman; or
 The existence of a lacuna not contemplated by the law; or
 Where the application of the law may breach the very essence of fairness and
justice
 The question becomes what then should be done? The answer to this very question
lies in the understanding of Jurisprudence. Especially in the light of what the law is
and what it should be.
 Different schools of thought have been raised to address this fundamental question but
focus will be made to the interpretive school

KEY POINTS OF INTERPRETIVE SCHOOL

 Professor Ronald Dworkin, an American Philosopher has contributed immensely to
interpretive jurisprudence. He based his theory of law on his critique of the positive
theories of law, especially the theory developed by HLA Hart.

 Dworkin’s original critique of Hart’s theory revolved around the role of rules and
principles in law as well as the problems of judicial discretion and retrospection.

 Legal Positivism holds that a legal system is a closed legal system in which correct
decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social
considerations. However, the interpretive school holds that law consist of rules,
principles and policies.

Lotachukwu Udenta
1
  Accordingly, Prof. Ronald Dworkin – a proponent – rejects the positivists’
contention that in hard cases where there is a lacuna not covered by the rules, then
judges should apply discretion.

 Dworkin argues that if this strong discretion is exercised, it would mean that the new
law would act retrospectively and the parties would be bound by a law that did not
exist before their case as an unelected body of judges would be making the rules to fit
the case and this would be clearly undemocratic.

 To prevent this challenge: Dworkin posits that when deciding hard cases, the judges
should invoke a legal principle to decide the outcome.

 On the other hand – When rules are imposed in a case and yet will not do justice,
Judges must turn to principles. This is because principles and policies are also part of
law and must be respected by the Judges.

 In distinguishing between Principles, Policies and Rules – Prof Dworkin posits that –

 Rules are applicable in an all-or-nothing fashion. That is, if a rule stipulates

certain facts to exist and those facts exist, then the rule is valid and must be
accepted. On the other hand, Principles do not operate in the all-or-nothing
fashion. Principles are reasons for or against certain outcomes in a case.

 A rule is an authoritative statement of what to do or what not to do in a

situation issued by an appropriate person or body. On the other hand, a
principle is an elementary assumption, concept, doctrine, maxim or system of
reasoning generally held to be fundamental and used as a basis for prediction
and action.

 Principles are not liable to change by statutes but rules can change.

 Principles are standards that should be observed not because it will advance or
secure a desirable economic, political or social situation, but because it is a
requirement of justice or fairness or some other dimension of morality.

 A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve

rational outcomes and is implemented as a procedure or protocol.

ROLES PRINCIPLES PLAY IN A LAW

Lotachukwu Udenta
2
CASES WHERE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN APPLIED
Principle 1: Ex turpi causa non oritor actio: No action can arise from an illegal act.
1. RIGS V PALMER:
 The central question was whether a young man who poisoned his grandfather
should nevertheless inherit his estate as stated in his grandfather’s will.
 Following the laid down probate rules, the young man is to inherit on the basis
that the wishes of the person who made the will must be respected.
 However, on the basis of principle, the grandson was denied of the inheritance on
the recognized principle that no man should benefit from their evil acts.

2. NEW YORK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE

An assignee of a life policy insurance caused the death of an assured by felonious
means.
Following the laid down rules, the assignee has a right to receive the insured sum.
However, on the basis of principle, such assignee was denied recovery of the insured
sum on the recognized principle that no man should benefit from his own wrongdoing.

Principle 2: Principle of Equality

1. R v R: The House of Lords swept away the rule that a man could not be guilty of
raping his wife. This decision was predicated on the principle of equality.

2. R v Dudley & Stephens: the survivors of a shipwreck killed and ate the youngest
crew member. They were prosecuted for murder. In their defence, they raised a rule
of sea which permitted cannibalisation under a shipwreck. The court disregarded the
rules and found them guilty on the principle that all life is equal.

3. Alajemba Uke v Albert: There was a customary rule of “Oli Ekpe” in Nnewi Igbo
Community that a woman can neither sue or be sued nor be allowed to give evidence
relating to land. The appellant brought this action seeking to enforce the customary
rule and overturn

It is a fraud to conceal a fraud

Court will not be used as an engine of fraud

Lotachukwu Udenta
3