{"id":75614,"date":"2020-08-14T20:40:45","date_gmt":"2020-08-14T20:40:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/?p=33338"},"modified":"2020-08-14T20:40:45","modified_gmt":"2020-08-14T20:40:45","slug":"exturpi-causa-non-oritur-actio-a-rule-of-justice-or-public-policy-timothy-olamide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/exturpi-causa-non-oritur-actio-a-rule-of-justice-or-public-policy-timothy-olamide\/","title":{"rendered":"Exturpi Causa Non Oritur Actio: A Rule Of Justice Or Public Policy? – Timothy Olamide."},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Latin Maxim, Exturpi Causa non Oritur Actio<\/em><\/strong> has been the principle upon which Courts based their judgments on Contracts or cause of Actions tainted with illegality. This Article tends to examine whether the Maxim is a rule of Justice or Public Policy through decided cases.<\/p>\n

What does the Maxim mean<\/strong>?<\/p>\n

The Maxim as a principle of law\u00a0 simply means no person should be able to found a claim on an illegal or immoral act. It has received\u00a0 a wide judicial recognition in the Common law Jurisdictions since its formulation by\u00a0 Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 342 at 343).He said\u00a0 No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff\u0092s own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says that he has no right to be assisted.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The above exposition by Lord Mansfield means that no right which arise from an illegal contract or transaction\u00a0 would be enforced by the court of Law.<\/p>\n

The Maxim has been the fulcrum upon which Nigerian Courts base their decisions when sitting over cause of actions tainted with illegality. Thus in Unitrust Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ambico Sendirian Nigeria Ltd. (2012) LPELR -15417(CA), Per Pemu JCA held \u0093A contract, that has no root, cannot lean on the principle of public policy to take root. It is dead and dead it is….void and cannot be the foundation of any legal right.\u0094 Equally, it has been held in the case of Fasel Services Limited & Anor. v. Nigerian Port Authority &\u00a0 Anor(2009)9 NWLR (pt.1146)400 S.C,( 2009) LPELR S.C 88\/2003. The Supreme Court held \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0“The attitude of the Courts to the issue of apparent or ex-facie illegality is certainly well settled. When a contract is ex-facie illegal, whether the alleged illegality has been pleaded or not, the Court would not close its eyes against illegality, as it is the duty of every Court to refuse to enforce such a transaction. In otherwords, once illegality has been brought to the attention of the Court, it must be considered and resolved.<\/strong> <\/em>See also the following cases Akagbue and Ors. v. Romaine (1982) 5 S.C. 133; Nasr v. Berini (Betrut-riyad (Nigeria) Bank Ltd (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 274 and Sodipo v. Lemminkainen (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 15) 220.<\/p>\n