Ignorance of law

2025 CLD 872 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 156 & 166Insurance of public property, matter ofViolations by Insurance CompanyPenalty, imposition ofMens ReaScopeIgnorance of law

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') penalized Appellant (Insurance Company ) on a complaint lodged by National Insurance Company Limited (NICL/Complainant ) for underwriting insurance policies of vehicles of a public sector entity (PASSCO)

Assertion of the Appellant was that the Respondent/Commission was required to establish mens rea (guilty mind) before proceeding against the Appellant under S. 156(6) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 because the Appellant being a regulatee under the Insurance Ordinance 2000 was required to have complete knowledge and information regarding the ambit of operations and restrictions imposed under the law

Legal principle of law, "ignorantia juris non excusar" (ignorance of the law excuses not), or "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" (ignorance of law excuses no one), is explicit and holds that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content

Furthermore, ignorance of the law may be considered as a valid argument inparticular cases where violations are committed by a third person, having no direct or indirect concern with the relevant law, however, a regulatee or any other stakeholder under the relevant law cannot take a defense that they were not aware of such law

Appeal, filed by Insurance Company, being merit-less was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 CLD 386 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10 & 37(2)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 113False and misleading informationDeceptive marketing practiceAdmitted factIgnorance of lawEffect

Complainant alleged that respondent was fraudulently using its logo, packaging, colour scheme, design and get up, to deceive consumers

Enquiry Committee recommended initiating of proceedings against respondent

Validity

All orders issued by Competition Commission for violation of S. 10 of Competition Act, 2010, were not only placed on website for information of general public but were also publicized in newspapers for information of consumers and stakeholders

Taking defence of ignorance of law was not justifiable

Respondent was well aware about existence of Competition Act, 2010, and goodwill of complainant

Competition Commission turned down such defence as it had no force

In presence of clear and unambiguous admission on behalf of respondent and in accordance with the principle enshrined under Art. 113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, fact admitted were not to be proved

Violation of S. 10(1) of Competition Act, 2010 by respondent was proved and did not require any further deliberation

Competition Commission to protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviour, including deceptive marketing practice imposed token penalty

Complaint was allowed accordingly.

2019 CLC 1496 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 64 & 54Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, Rr. 62(3), 64 & 18Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 15Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), PreambleElection petitionFiling of election appeal instead of election petitionIgnorance of lawInstitution of wrong proceedingsEffectPleadings, verification ofScopeElection appeal instead of election petition was filed which was dismissed being not maintainableValidityInstitution of incorrect proceedings would disentitle the petitioner from the grant of relief soughtPlea of ignorance of law could not be construed or sustained as a bona fide excuse

Election Tribunal had no option but to dismiss any proceedings instituted which were not in due compliance with the mandatory provisions of applicable law

Requirements prescribed for verification of pleadings and annexures were mandatory in nature

Impugned order had been passed in due consonance with the law

No infirmity and illegality had been pointed out in the impugned order

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLD 1014 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10, 37(2) & 38Deceptive marketing practiceIgnorance of law

Common objections taken by the respondents was that 'They had no knowledge about special law i.e. Competition Act, 2010'; that they had no intention to deceive any person in any manner; that the complaint had been filed for extraneous purposes and with mala fide intention which tantamounted to victimization and harassment to the respondent

Validity

Trade mark of the company 'DHL' and its logo were known worldwide

Complainant company had incurred considerable expenses in advertising and promoting its trade mark through various media, both print and electronic, having circulation/viewership throughout the world; and in Pakistan and through its quality service had earned a certain stature in rendering courier services

Ignorance of law could not be accepted as a valid justification or defences

Respondents' contention that they had no knowledge about the Competition Act, 2010 or any such type of special law, was not a valid justification

Complainant, in circumstances, was within right to seek and pursue protection of its rights conferred under the law.

1990 PCRLJ 1717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ignorance of law

Ignorance of law is no excuse and that too on the part of a State functionary sufficiently responsible like the Station House Officer of a Police Station.