ANALYSIS OF LEGAL MAXIM :NULLUS COMMODUM CAPERE POTEST DE INJURIA SUA PROPRIA

Rahul G, Student, Manipal Law School, MAHE

Introduction

The legal principle known as “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria,” meaning “No one can gain an advantage from their own wrongdoing,” serves as a cornerstone of equity and justice. This principle embodies the ethical and legal belief that individuals should not gain rewards or advantages from their own misdeeds. It is extensively utilized in numerous legal scenarios to promote justice and prevent wrongdoers from taking advantage of circumstances for personal gain. Through judicial precedents and examples, this principle has been reinforced as a protective measure for equitable transactions and a deterrent against the exploitation of legal ambiguities.

MEANING OF THE LEGAL MAXIM

No one can derive an advantage from their own wrong 

EXPLANATION OF THE LEGAL MAXIM

The general rule of good faith is the source of the aphorism. It means that if the former party has prevented the latter from fulfilling the relevant obligation or from exercising that remedy through some illegal act, then one party may not take advantage of the fact that the other party has not exercised a right of recourse or fulfilled a contractual obligation. 

As a principle of equity, the maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” prohibits a wrongdoer from suing the other party when his own wrongdoing is the basis for the action. It serves as a deterrent against wrongdoing and provides the harmed person with appropriate protection. The opposing party is forced to take legal preventative action when someone commits a violation that reasonably annoys them; yet, in the process, the rights of the perpetrator may be violated. According to this rule, the offender is prohibited from taking any action against the other party. Since the other party was forced to act and might not have infringed rights, the other party’s act is not actionable.

ILLUSTRATION

A makes a contract with B, to build a house within a certain time, under a penalty. B finding materials; however, he delays in providing the materials and further prevents the due completion of the house. In this case, B shall not be allowed to succeed in an action for the penalty.

CASE LAWS RELATED TO THE LEGAL MAXIM

1. KUHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH VS STATE OF BIHAR 

Facts of the Case- The landholder’s objection to the allegation of excess land was upheld. No appeal was filed against it. Subsequently, the law was amended. The defendant allege that the plaintiff hid excess land by playing foul in earlier proceeding and start fresh proceeding. 

The plaintiff appealed, claiming that earlier order had attained finality ality and was not challenged hence no f no fresh proceeding is able, and it is against the law. The defendant claimed that proceeding was not concluded as final order was not issued

Application of the maxim  

The court noted that the defendant had violated its statutory obligation to issue a final order by failing to do so. And now, by taking advantage of it, the defendant is attempting to initiate new legal proceedings against the plaintiff. The defendant was prevented from acting against the plaintiff by the court, which ruled that it was against the principle. Additionally, the court discovered evidence that even the plaintiff had acted improperly by withholding information and misbehaving throughout the proceedings. With this advantage, the plaintiff was attempting to avert legal action against him. The plaintiff failed to disclose all necessary information, and the court prevented this from happening by returning the issue to the High Court for determination. The court’s ruling was well-reasoned and diplomatic. The concept had been utilised twice by the court.

The court’s ruling was well-reasoned and diplomatic. The concept was used twice by the court in the same case, preventing any party from profiting from their own wrongdoing. In the end, barring the defendant benefited the plaintiff—who was also at fault. However, the court was unable to exclude the plaintiff from the same lawsuit since doing so would have gone against its own ruling. Thus, the court gently sent the case to the High Court for a foul play determination.

2. Hamilton vs Graybill 

Facts of the case – The plaintiff-respondent was given a signed lease for the office. Two outside doors to the office opened into the corridor. Later, the plaintiff’s private exterior entrance was obstructed by the defendant’s proposal to divide the corridor into a new room for the prospective renter. The plaintiff did not consent; instead, he just agreed to allow access to his entryway. The plaintiff suspends the rent since the defendant placed the partition that blocked the entryway.

Application of the maxim

The court determined that the doors and hallway were an essential component of the property and that both parties had agreed to the terms and conditions of the lease. The plaintiff was unable to fully exercise his rights because the defendant had illegally built a barrier that barred the door and the premises. According to the ruling of the court, the plaintiff has suffered harm because of the partition’s construction. Therefore, the defendant is not permitted to use it and file a lawsuit against the plaintiff to have the rent suspended. In the hope that the defendant wouldn’t break the conditions of the lease, the plaintiff was exercising his rights and paying the rent.   It is the defendant’s action that compelled the plaintiff to suspend the rent. So, the plaintiff’s action of suspending the rent is justified.

3. Ashok Kapil vs Sana Ullah 

Facts of the case – In this case, the Plaintiff had vacated the premises of the defendants on the last date of the Lease. Further, the Defendant had applied to the district magistrate,e d the magistrate had ordered allotted the possession to the defendant. The plaintiff further objected to the case stating that the structure cannot be considered as a proper building as this structure does not contain a roof. Further, the district judge .rejected the appeal stating that the plaintiff itself had removed the roof and allotted the building to the defendant.  Further the plaintiff had appealed in the high court and the court had upheld the case and quashed the allotment of the defendant.

Application of the legal maxim in the present case

On the issue of whether the roofless structure considered shall be considered as building or not, the court held that the plaintiff was not clean handed and had fraudulent intentions. Court had interpreted the literal meaning of the word building and interpreted as ‘Building are sometimes not covered with roof ‘and held that roofless also shall be covered under the word ‘Building.’ Thus, the court prevented the wrongdoer from taking advantage of their own wrong. 

The court was tasked with determining if the structure without a roof could be classified as a building. It was observed that the structure originally had a roof at the time the plaintiff assumed vacant possession. The plaintiff deceitfully removed the roof to prevent the building from being assigned to another party and neglected to notify the relevant authorities about its vacancy. The court concluded that the plaintiff was exploiting his own mistake to support his objection to the allocation, characterizing his appeal as fraudulent rather than genuine. Consequently, the court rejected the appeal to avert such an occurrence.

CONCLUSION 

The principle embodied in the maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” reinforces essential tenets of justice, fairness, and good faith. By prohibiting wrongdoers from benefiting from their own wrongful actions, this maxim acts as a deterrent to unethical conduct and promotes equitable resolutions in legal matters. Its utilization across various cases highlights its significance in safeguarding the integrity of legal processes and enhancing public confidence in the justice system. This maxim transcends a mere legal principle; it represents a moral obligation to maintain fairness and avert injustice.