30 C
Nigeria
Wednesday, February 8, 2023
- Advertisement -spot_img

ON JIM IYKE AND UCHE MADUAGWU TUSSLE – VICTORIA ODINS

On the issue of Jim Iyke and Uche Maduagwu, it should be known that where your right stops is where another’s begins and that the law is no respecter of any man.

I will not go into the nitty gritty of their tussle but would rather be addressing the legal issues imbibed in it. This is mainly for those that have narrowed their minds and are already biased in the favor of either of the parties.

I would briefly be looking at the legal implications from their actions which can be viewed from different angles.

This could take the following forms –

UCHE CAN SUE FOR BATTERY AND ASSAULT, WHILE JIM WOULD RELY ON THE DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION.

It is without doubt that Jim’s act is an act of assault and battery. But then the issue before the court would be if Uche’s act was enough provocation as to cause Jim to react the way he did (for this, the court will also look at the doctrine of ‘the heat of passion’). This would determine what scale the law would fall on.

JIM CAN SUE FOR SLANDER, WHILE UCHE WOULD HIDE UNDER THE SHIELD OF JUSTIFICATION.

Uche’s utterances (accusations) are enough slander (and libel since publication can be proved) on the person of Jim. But this would not be so if Uche can show that what he said was the truth. If Uche succeed in this, he would be free from whatever damages Jim would claim but if not, he might pay through his teeth.

See also  COURT FREES EL-ZAKZAKY, WIFE

As can be seen, in this case no one can categorically say what the decision of the Court would be as the ‘Rule of Law is a Double Edged Sword’.

However, it should be noted that the law seriously frowns at self-help. But this is not to say that self help is never condoned by the court. On the contrary, under our legal jurisprudence, there are circumstances that warrants self help and makes it a complete defense to a wrong.

It is for the court to look at the grievances and the defense of both parties and then juxtapose this with the tenets of the law before giving it’s pronouncement.

The rule remains that, he who comes to equity must do that with clean hands.

PS: this article does not take away the criminality of their actions as that is a different ballgame from the civil aspect that I just discussed.

More Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Stay Connected

83,456FansLike
540,987FollowersFollow
540,987FollowersFollow
6,547FollowersFollow
39,560FollowersFollow
9,571SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles