"UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM" = "Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy."

TODAY ON RODRICK LAW WAVES We navigate around the the Latin Maxim called "UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM" that means "Where there is a wrong, there is 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 literal meaning of the maxim is "where there is a wrong there is a remedy."

If any wrong is committed then the law provides a remedy for that.

The maxim can be phrased as

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy, thus, once it is 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 is no right without a remedy; and if all remedies are gone to enforce a right, the right in point of law ceases to exist.

JUSTICE POLLOCK said that *"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 is 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 the different legal aspects of the same rules and events.

The LAW OF TORT is said to be the development of the maxim;

*"Ubi jus ibi remedium."*

The circuit COURT OF APPEALS of the United States of America in the case of 

*Feist V. Young*, observed that _“it is an elementary maxim of the equity of jurisprudence and there is no wrong without a remedy”.

This maxim also says that there is 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 is required to be maintained by that person only and remedy is available only when he is injured in the exercise of duty or enjoyment of it; It is useless to imagine and think a right without a remedy. It is necessary to keep in mind that both rights violated and the remedy sought or to be obtained should be legal.

There are many moral and political wrong but are not actionable or it does not give many sufficient reasons to take legal action as they are not recognized by law. The maxim does not mean that there is 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 does not mean that there is a remedy for every possible wrong. It is appropriately said by JUSTICE STEPHEN  that maxim would be correctly stated if maxim were to be reversed to say that;

*“where there is no legal remedy,there is no legal wrong"*.

This maxim has been reiterated by the First Equitable Maxim as well as Section 1382 of the Napoleonic Civil Code of 1807, 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 of "ubi jus ibi remedium." 👨🏿‍⚖️```

1• The maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" does not apply to moral and political wrong which are not actionable.

2 • This maxim is not applied to those cases in which proper remedy is given in case of breach of right under common law.If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any person then this maxim will not be applicable.

3 • 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.

4 • This maxim is also not applicable in case of public nuisance unless and until a plaintiff shows that he suffered more injury than other members or peoples of the society.

5 • This maxim is not applicable where the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

By;

Aryamanya Rodrick, LLB-3, BSU RODRICK LAW WAVES