Home Maxims & Terms Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa meaning in Urdu
Maxim Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa

Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2004 PLD 591 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 403Maxim: "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa"Connotation

Provision of S.403, Cr.P.C. is based on the Latin maxim Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no person should be twice disturbed for the same cause) which has led to the development of two common law principles of equity, namely, autre fois acquit (acquitted formally) and autre fois convict (convicted formally).

2002 PLD 131 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa Nemo debet esse judex in propria sue cause" and "nemo sibi esse judex vel suis jus decere debet"

Connotation

It is fundamental principle in the administration of justice in the civilized world that a person cannot be a judge in a cause wherein he is interested.

2001 PLD 568 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa"

Connotation.

1989 PLD 26 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

"Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa" (No man to be his own judge and litigant)??Where the judge has interest in the result of a cause, he cannot sit in judgment upon it??Where a person was an interested party, being an applicant for the allotment of land, his association in the allotment committee and participation in decision making, disqualified him to be member/Chairman of that Committee for the purpose of deciding his own application??Such person thus cannot be permitted to take advantage of allotment made in his favour by Allotment Committee in which he participated.

1968 PCRLJ 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Maxim- Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no one can be a Judge it; his own cause) Doctrine of bias-Important principle of natural justice

Maxim" Justice should not only be done but manifestly seem to be done "Maxims apply do judicial or quasi judicial tribunals as well as administrative authorities performing quasi judicial functions but not functions "purely administrative or procedural in character" Natural justice

Principles apply unless otherwise provided by a statute.

1967 PLD 1112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

(e) Maxim: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (No one shall be a judge in his own cause)-Applies with full force to departmental inquiries where orders have to be passed to disadvantage of functionaries of State.

1965 PLD 112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 3 (5) (al [as amended by West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance (XLVII of 1962)],-Officer (Home Secretary) dealing with case of detention on behalf of Government-Cannot be member of Board-Maxim: Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no one can be a judge in his own cause).

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3140

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa"

PCRLJ 2020
2019-November-1

2020 P Cr

HABIB HASSAN — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
SCMR 1998
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2‑P of 1997 in Constitutional Petition No. l‑P of 1997, decided on 28th November, 1997.

1988 S C M R 173

AKHUNZADA BEHRAWAR SAEED, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mr. Justice SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 2022
Writ Petition No.6843-P of 2019, decided on 27th October, 2021.

2022 P L C (C

SHAHERYAR GUL Versus The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Principal Secretary to Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others

Court: Peshawar High Court
PLD 1989
Writ Petition No.1040‑R of 1975, decided on 5th November, 1988.

P L D 1989 Lahore 26

Lt.‑Col. NAFIS‑UD‑DIN ANSARI‑‑Petitioner Versus Qazi HABIB ULLAH and another‑‑Respondents

Court: (b) West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 M.L.R.9‑‑
SCMR 2003
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.270‑P to 272‑P of 2002, decided on 18th July, 2002.

2003 S C M R 104

GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P through Chief Secretary and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Dr. HUSSAIN AHMAD HAROON and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLC 2018
2018-March-15

2018 C L C 1578

GHULAM ALI — Applicant Versus DOST MUHAMMAD — Respondent

Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)
CLC 2019
2018-February-27

2019 C L C 1384

RASHID — Applicant Versus Mst. FARAH NAZ — Respondent

Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)
MLD 2018
2018-February-27

2018 M L D 1438

MUHAMMAD WARIAL — Applicant Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through DC and 5 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)
YLR 2015
Civil Revision No.1498 of 2013, decided on 12th June, 2013.

2015 Y L R 544

HASSAN ALI GONDAL and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs KARIM ENTERPRISES — Respondent

Court: Lahore
PLD 2002
N/A

P L D 2002 Karachi 131

M. ADIL HAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others — Respondents

Court: High Court