ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM

1) Actus de nemini facit injuriam.

Actus Dei Nemini Facit Injuriam means “An act of god causes legal injury to no one”. In
other words, no one is responsible when something (wrong) is done by God (nature).
This denotes any damages caused by the unpredictable natural forces, will not be
covered by the law. It means the law cannot hold anyone responsible for the act of God
i.e. ‘force majeure’. Likewise, no one can complain against any act of God because
such an act is inevitable. Even any legal action or demanding compensation against the
act of God will not be entertained by the Court.

The act of God is used as a defence tool in cases of torts when the situation is beyond
the power of the defendant and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In such a
case, the defendant will not be liable in tort law for such inadvertent damage. Two
essential elements are required in the application of such a defence. Firstly, there must
be the working of natural forces. Secondly, the occurrence must be extraordinary and
beyond reasoning. And finally, it should be beyond the power of human beings.

In Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar (AIR 1971 Ker 197) the plaintiff had a
contract with the defendant for transportation of goods. But the goods were looted by a
mob which was beyond the control of the defendant. It was held that “every event
beyond the control of the defendant cannot be said Act of God” and “the destructive
acts of an unruly mob cannot be considered an act of God”. It was also settled in this
case that acts that can be traced to natural forces and which have nothing to do with the
intervention of human agency could be an aid to be acts of God.

Similarly, in Nicholas v. Marsland (1876) 2 EXD 1, the defendant had several artificial
lakes on his land. Unprecedented rain which had never been witnessed caused the
banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried away the bridges belonging
to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff’s bridges were crashed by the act of God and
the defendant was not liable.
2) Salus populi est suprema lex

Salus Populi suprema lex is a Latin legal maxim that means the welfare of the people
shall be the supreme law. The maxim tends to imply the information that the law exists
to serve the common good. This can be achieved only when justice is administered
lawfully, judicially, without fear or favor, and without being hampered and thwarted and
this cannot be effective unless respect for it is fostered and maintained (Pritam Pal v.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1992 SC 904).
In all cases of necessity, the interests of an individual must give way to the interests of
the multitude, even though they extend to his life. This is shown in the experience of
every nation and people upon the face of the earth. The principle governing this rule
extends to private, as well as to public interests.
And from the peasant to the sovereign, all are amenable to its illimitable sway.
The phrase is the state motto of Missouri, accepted, like many other states, as an
element of its state seal.
It also appears on many coats of arms, sometimes in variant forms such as Salus
Populi suprema lex, or Salus Populi suprema est. These coats of arms include the City
of Salford, the London Borough of Lewisham, Eastleigh, Harrow, etc. Uses it as the
epigraph in the form Salus Populi suprema lex in his Second Treatise on Government
and refers to it as a fundamental rule for the government. It was the inscription on the
cornet of Roundhead and Leveller William Rainsborowe during the English Civil War.
The principle of Roman law ‘Salus Populi est suprema lex’ means that ‘welfare of the
people is the paramount law’. This principle is the abiding principle in the Constitution of
India.
The State has been assigned the positive role of helping the people realize their rights
and needs and in doing so the courts of India have often given expansive interpretation
to Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides the fundamental right to life.
The article states that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law. By expansive interpretation
of Article 21, the Right to a healthy environment has been granted to all persons in
India.
On the further interpretation of Article 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India gave a
judgment in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu that, the
right to access safe drinking water is fundamental to life. The court further held that
under Article 21 there is a duty on the State to provide clean drinking water to its
citizens.
Gujarat high court had told the state government not to forget that “welfare of the people
is the supreme law” and advised it on how public interest is of great importance on the
matter of land acquisition by the Industrialist at an easy go. The case involved Navyug
Industry, which was allotted over 53,000 square meters of land in 1962 near Patan
town. As the city expanded, the land was covered by the city survey and a portion of the
plot was vested with the government authority. The industry, which was wound up in
2001, was permitted to sell the land on the condition that it would not claim another
parcel of land in lieu of the plot.

3) Vigilantibus , non domientibus , jura subveveniunt. Definition

Literal Meaning

The law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights.

Origin

Latin

Explanation
The maxim refers to the obligation of individuals to not only be aware of their rights
under the law, but also to be vigilant while exercising or using the same. The legal
process only benefits those who have been careful enough with their rights, instead of
being ignorant. This maxim expands upon through the Limitation Act of 1963, which
entails that if the suffered/ aggrieved party does not file a suit for relief within the
stipulated period, for the breach of his rights, then it cannot be claimed at a later stage.

Any suit of legal right infringement will automatically be considered invalid if filed beyond
the limitation period, prescribed by law. In the practical sense, other than the common
civil suit actions, the special legislation on various subject matters specifically provides
for a period of limitation. Such a maxim with supporting provisions is primarily to ensure
that the legal system provides justice for those who realize legal damage.

Illustration

Filing an appeal at the High Court, in a civil suit from a lower Court, must be done within
90 days from the date of its decree or order. If X, the aggrieved party, approaches the
High Court after the exhaustion of such a period, then the appeal would not be
entertained, by application of this maxim.

Case Laws
In the case of Nacinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2000), the
Supreme Court made a key observation with respect to the application of this maxim.
Given the aphorism that ‘to err, is human’, could practically lead to unintentional
situations despite being vigilant, which could attract the commission of an offense. The
Courts should not always find means to pull down the shutters of adjudication before a
party seeking justice, instead should take measures to entertain all possible cases of
grievances, if it is genuine.
In the case of Vanka Radhamanohari v Vanke Venkata Reddy and Ors. [1993 (2) BLJR
875] “An exception to this maxim was observed in this which involved a criminal case of
cruelty to a woman under Section 498-A. The Court observed that, given the gravity of
the offense committed and with respect to the specific facts and circumstances of this
case, the maxim would not be applicable in this case and the case will be admitted in
case of offenses relating to cruelty against women.”
4) Nemo est haeres viventis\

Origin

Latin

Literal Meaning

No one is heir of a living person

Explanation

Only when the ancestor dies, does an individual become an actual, complete heir to
another. His / her father or other from whom he/she inherits must be deceased
before a child may become an heir. According to the proverb, nemo est haeres
viventis, the living children are expectant only descendants, and thus no one will
take an estate under that title whilst the ancestor remains. When a will is made by
the testator it is his intention that what will be done to his property after his death and
thus it decides who will be his heir and because of this until death, nothing can be
ascertained?

Illustrations

A is the father of his only son B and through the maxim Nam nemo haeres Viventis
B can be his legal heir but does not become complete heir till A dies.

Case Laws
In Illinois Co. vs. Bosworth, there were only 2 children surviving of Mr. Bosworth to
recover a certain portion of land in New Orleans. The land belonged to his father and
that was seized due to some illegal activities by the father. On petitioner claiming the
land, the Supreme Court of United States used the maxim nam nemo haeres
viventis for the 1st time in this case and held the claim of the petitioner illegal.
 In Krishna Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha, the deceased industrialist Birla
executed several wills and at last will in 1999 bequeathed his properties to the
respondent Rajendra Singh Lodha thereafter the caveat was filed by the appellants
opposing the will as they were his legal heirs.

The court has referred to S.2(h) with the maxim and nam nemi haeres viventis that
there is no heir until the death of a person and he has executed a will so the
properties belonged to the name mentioned in the will.

In Shamsudin vs. Abdul Hoosein If the heir apparent made a settlement of the
property before the death of the propositus and got the money on the account that
he would not have a claim in the share. He cannot make that transfer as he is not
the legal heir by the maxim Nam nemo haeres viventis because the legal owner of
the property is still alive and the transfer was held to be void by the top court.

5) Expressio unis est exclusio alterius

Literal meaning

The explicit mention of one (thing) is the exclusion of another

Origin

Latin

Explanation

The legal maxim simply means that if one of the two possibilities of an event is talked
about expressly, then the second possibility is kicked out by default. Since simultaneous
occurrence of both possibilities of a single event is undesirable and not valid under the
law. In order, to make a particular outcome valid and admissible, the other aspect has to
be completely knocked out. It can also be understood as; when one or more things of a
class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded. The legal maxim
forms the basis of the statutory provisions of law and states that inclusion of a specific
category or class, excludes the other, completely. Since inclusion of two contradictory
statements is violative of the principle of natural justice. It is also a prominent
characteristic of law that an implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to
believe that if the legislature had meant to include a particular thing within the ambit of
its legislation, it would have referred to that thing expressly. Because of this expectation,
the legislature’s failure to mention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was
deliberately excluded. Although there is no express exclusion, the exclusion is implied.
The doctrine is useful not only in determining the extents of contracts but also plays an
important role in the construction of statutes.

It can be interpreted as- Where certain persons or things are specified in the law,
contract or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation shall be inferred. In
such a case, the reference to the assignment to a financial institution excludes
assignment to any other entity. It is pertinent to note that, the express inclusion of one
(maybe an act, a statute, or a provision), leads to exclusion of the other. This is a well-
established condition, that express inclusion of one means implied exclusion of others.

Illustration

Let us assume that, initially, A and B enter into a written contract over a certain matter,
then, later on, B cannot depute C on his behalf to execute the contract. Therefore, it can
be observed that entering an express contract between the two parties A and B
excludes any possibility of a third party, C, stepping into the contract during its
execution.

Likewise, if a specific act is barred by the law of land, expressly, under any of its
statutes, then its commission is impliedly illegal and punishable. For instance,
smuggling is an illegal act and is expressly barred under the Indian Penal Code, any
act in furtherance of the same act or any other act of this class is illegal and shall lead to
harsh consequences.
Another example is that, the inclusion of an expressions like, ‘notwithstanding anything
contained in this section’ in the provision bars the possibility of inclusion of any other
condition.

Case laws
In R. r. Therms case, Le Dain J. applied the expressio unius principle of construction to
s. 24 of the Charter. Subsection (2) of s. 24 provides that a court shall exclude evidence
if its admission, having regard to all the circumstances, would bring the administration of
justice into disrepute. In the decision appealed from, the majority in the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal had held that in addition to the duty to exclude evidence under s-s. (2),
a court has the discretion to exclude evidence under s-s. (1) of s. 24 if it considers it
“appropriate and just in the circumstances” to do so. Le Dain J., with whom five other
members of the court concurred on the point, came to a contrary conclusion.

In the above-cited case law, it was iterated that, where one set of laws have taken
dominance over the subject matter, and the law itself expressly declares the same,
then, the inclusion of other law governing the same shall be excluded.