I was listening to some law students engage in academic arguments in their moot court trials the other day and all of them were quoting a Latin legal maxim “Ex turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio” and it occurred to me by the way they were busy quoting it even where the principle is not applicable that most of these law students and even lawyers who quote these legal maxims do not know their meanings, they just use it to bully the person on the other side into submission.
So let me use this medium to educate our readers on the meaning of this popular Latin law maxim; Ex turpi causa non oritur actio; how it became one of the most famous legal principles and the old English case it was first applied.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a Latin phrase that literally means “from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise”.
It is a legal doctrine that tends to postulate that a claimant will not be allowed to pursue legal remedies or seek redress in court if the action arises in connection with him engaging in an illegal or dishonorable act.
By the effect of this legal principle, a person who is fully aware that the deal or contract he is involved in is illegal cannot run to court when a party to the contract defaults, seeking the court to award him damages or force the other party to carry out his own part of the bargain.
This legal principle, “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”, can as well be used as a defense which is known as the illegality defense. It is a defense available to a defendant who may plead it, stating that “even though he broke a contract or conducted himself negligently nevertheless a claimant by being part of the illegality cannot enforce damages against him”.
In the case of National Coal Board v England (1954), AC 403, Lord Asquith while applying this legal principle of Ex turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio to the case, he painted a scenario to further explain this maxim. He stated thus; “If two burglars, A, and B, agree to open a safe by means of explosives, and A so negligently handles the explosive charge as to injure B, B might find some difficulty in maintaining an action for negligence against A”.
This Latin maxim of Ex turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio first gained its prominence as a legal principle in 1775 when Lord Mansfield applied it in the old case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, since then, it has been applied in plethora cases and in numerous jurisdictions around the world as an outstanding and significant legal principle.
In the above case, the claimant sold an item to the defendant with the knowledge that the defendant intends to smuggle that item to another city where it is contraband. The defendant subsequently failed to pay the claimant and the claimant brought an action in court against the defendant praying the court to mandate the defendant to pay for the item.
The defendant raised this Latin maxim defense of “Ex turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio”, as a legal defense stating that the transaction between him and the claimant was dishonorable and criminal, hence the defendant can not bring up an action in court to enforce the performance of a dishonorable act.
Although the court held in the favour of the claimant, stating that the principle does not apply to the case due to the circumstances and the facts of the case, since then, the Latin maxim Ex turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio, has been a prominent legal principle in English jurisprudence.
