Latin Words

This brings to mind the Latin maxim – 'Ubi jus, ibi remedium' where there is a right, there is a remedy. The law ensures that if the Plaintiff has a right he must have the means to vindicate that right, and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment or exercise of it see Bello V. A-G Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 45) 828 SC.

SHUAIBU LAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP] &

Alibi is Latin for "elsewhere". It also means "the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed" Blackss Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., Shehu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 112, Dagayya v. State(2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 637, Ochemaje v. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57 SC.

The learned appellant's counsel, in his total freedom to conduct the appellant's case in the best way he knows (and that privilege and authority cannot be denied) has narrowed the issue in this appeal to whether the mens rea had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has accordingly conceded the actus reus to the prosecution, and made an issue of the appellant, discharging a lawful duty at the material time; in the course of which he did what he did, the fatal shooting, in self-defence. The choice of this defence is coterminus with the admission that the appellant resorted to the actus reus in the circumstance justified by law. There can, of course, be no self-defence unless the actus reus is an admitted fact.

The actus reus is the wrongful act or deed that comprises the physical components of the crime charged. The mens rea, is the guilty mind or the state of the mind with which the accused person executed the criminal act. It is also the mental element.

Now, the said Latin maxim, res ipsa loquitur, [the thing speaks for itself], whose essential element is that the mere fact of the happening of the accident should tell its own story so as to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz, Tort, (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006) [seventeenth edition], paragraph 5-81, page 261, only operates under certain conditions. They are: (a) proof of the happening of an unexplained occurrence;(b) the occurrence must be one which would not have happened in the ordinary course of things without negligence on the part of somebody other than the plaintiff; and (C) the circumstances must point to the negligence in question being that of the defendant rather than that of any other person, PSHS Management Board and Anor v. Goshwe (2012) LPELR-9830 (SC), citing Royal Ade Nig Ltd v. NOCM Co. Plc [2004] 8 NWLR (Pt. 874) 206. Oputa, JSC, further explained that: This Latin maxim is applicable to actions for injury by negligence where no proof of such negligence is required beyond the accident itself, which is such as necessarily to involve negligence...see, Batavia (1845) 2 W. Rolf 407; The Valdis (1915) 31 T.L.R. 111. 'Res ipsa loquitur' is no more than a rule of evidence affecting the onus of proof. The essence of the maxim is that an event which in the ordinary course of things, was more likely than not to be caused by negligence was by itself evidence of negligence depending of course on the absence of explanation. The doctrine merely shifts the onus on the defendant. If the facts are sufficiently known or where the defendant gave an explanation, the doctrine will no longer apply: Barkway v. South Wales Transport (1950) 1 All E.R.392. Reliance on the doctrine of 'res ipsa' is thus a confession by the plaintiff that he has no direct and affirmative evidence of the negligence complained of against the defendant but that the surrounding circumstances amply establish...