⚖️⚖️DAILY LOCUTION⚖️⚖️
« Where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy. »
👉🏾 The word « jus » means legal authority to do something or to demand something.
The word « Remedium » means that the person has the right of action in the Court of Law.
👉🏾The maxim can be phrased as ⚖️ »Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. »
Thus, once it’s established that the right was breached, then Equity will provide a suitable remedy.
👉🏾This principle also underlines the fact that no wrong should be allowed to go without any compensation if it can be redressed by a Court of Law.
The law presumes that there’s no wrong without remedy; and if all remedies are gone to enforce a right, the right in point of law ceases to exist.
⚖️JUSTICE POLLOCK said that the right and wrongs are contrary to each other. Right actions are those which are prescribed by moral rules, wrong actions are those which are not prescribed by moral rules or which are prohibited by law.
In case of Legal action, anything which is wrong is not recognized by laws. It’s presumed that whenever a wrong is committed, it means that legal duties have been omitted. Hence the existence of duty involves a right then it also provides the possibility of wrong.
👉🏾Duty, right and wrongs are not separated but they are different legal aspects of the same rules and events.
👉🏾The LAW OF TORT is said to be the development of the maxim; ⚖️ »Ubi Remedium ibi Jus. »
👉🏾The ⚖️CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS of the USA in the case of
Leo Feist V. Young, observed that « it’s an elementary maxim of the Equity of Jurisprudence and there’s no wrong without a remedy. »
👉🏾This maxim equally highlights that there’s no remedy without any wrong and the persons whose right is being violated has a right to stand before the Court of Law. This principle also states that if the rights are available to a person, then it’s required to be maintained by that person only and remedy is available only when he’s injured in the exercise of duty or enjoyment of it; it’s useless to imagine and think a right without a remedy. It’s necessary to keep in mind that both rights violated and the remedy sought or to be obtained should be legal.
👉🏾There are several moral and political wrongs which aren’t actionable or it doesn’t give many sufficient reasons to take legal action as they’re recognized by law. The maxim doesn’t mean that there’s a legal remedy for each and every wrong committed.
For example, a contract which was required to be made on stamped paper may be made orally: in such circumstances, irrecoverable harm may be caused to other person and yet no legal remedy is available.
Thus, the maxim doesn’t mean that there’s a remedy for every possible wrong. It’s appropriately said by
⚖️JUSTICE STEPHEN that the maxim would be correctly stated .
👉🏾This maxim has been reified by the first Equitable maxim as well as ⚖️Section 1382 of the Napoleonic Civil Code of 1804 which provides;
« Any act of a person that causes harm to another, obliges the person from whom the act arrived to reparate the aggrieved person. »
Limitations to the maxim of « Ubi Remedium ibi Jus. »
- This maxim isn’t applicable to political wrongs which aren’t actionable perse.
- This maxim isn’t applicable to those cases in which proper remedy is given in case of breach of right under Common Law Legal system. If there’s no legal damage which has been caused to any person, then this maxim will not be applicable.
- No remedies are available in case of breach of marriage, vows or personal commitment as these all are the promises made without consideration and are based on trust.
- This maxim isn’t also applicable in case of public nuisance unless and until a plaintiff shows that s/he suffered more injury than other members or people’s of the society.
- The maxim isn’t applicable where the plaintiff is negligent or there’s negligence on the part of the plaintiff. ⚖️Res Ipsa Loquitur⚖️
BY BERLIOZ TCHANGOU Esq