Seminar 4- Rights and Duties

8/11/2019 Seminar 4- Rights and Duties

1/19

Compiled and Presented By:

Laban N. Osoro G62/76652/09

o!n O. "b#o$r G62/72%05/0&'te(en N. C!o)a G62/769*9/0&"$stin ".O. O$)o G62/767**/09

Delivered on 01/12/2009 University of Nairobi

+',-'P,+ NC LL 2009/*0 CL"'' G,O+P 1O+,

' -N", P, ' N " -ON ON ,-G3 ' "N + - '

'eminar O$tline1. Definition of a right

The interest theory

1


2/19

Will theory2. Nature / Chara teristi s of legal rights

!. "ohfelds #nalysis of right and riti is$ %ight and duty &iberty and no right 'o(er and liability )$$unity and disability

*. Classifi ation of rights and duties Class debate

-N ,O +C -ON:

This is the fourth ha+ter/se$inar that (ill e,a$ine $ore riti ally the on e+t of rights and duties. )ndis ussion this to+i the ba -ground laid in the +revious three se$inars is very relevant $ore s+e ifi allythe i$$ediate for$er on %ules 'rin i+les and their inter+retation . Whereas (e shall be analy ing the

on e+t of rights in details other orrelatives li-e liberty (ill not be e,+lored in si$ilar de+th as this (ill be a sub e t of se$inar si, &iberty and 3orality .

The se$inar (ill start (ith a detailed dis ussion on various definitions of the ter$ right and duty thediffi ulties in various definitions. "ere t(o theories (ill be analy ed na$ely the interest theory and the(ill theory. We (ill then atte$+t to ero in on hara teristi s or nature of legal rights. The se$inar (illsubstantively fo us on one #$eri an 4urist5s analysis of the on e+t of right6 4esley Ne# ombe3o! eld in the early years of the t(entieth entury. #dditionally the se$inar (ill give attention to the

lassifi ation of rights and duties. 7inally there (ill be a feedba -/ o$$ents/in+ut session and shorton luding thoughts on this to+i .

,i !ts and $ties

Lle#ellyn states that 8 law is a craft and a lawyer is a craftsman. As a craftsman he notes 8he should know the art of using his tools efficiently . These tools of a la(yer are on e+ts logi and language. Lord

ennin also observed that for a la(yer to su eed in the +rofession of la( is i$+erative to ultivateo$$and of language. Bent!am believes that ter$s li-e right duty +o(er +ro+erty et for$ the basi

bri -s used in legal +res ri+tion (hat "$stin alls the +rin i+les notions and distin tions o$$on to$ature legal syste$s. Bent!am says one should e,+lain the +art +layed by these on e+ts in la( in theinterest of greater larity of thoughts. 7or Bent!am the ob e t of this larifi ation is +ra ti al and this

larity is generally obs ure (ith the legal +rofession.

)n this dis ussion (e shall endeavour to define t(o o$$only used ter$s. We (ill atte$+t to dis over their dee+er $eaning so as to enhan e our a ura y in their use.

# ording to so$e o$$entators an ient %o$an la( and $edieval syste$s had no on e+t thato$+ared the $odern notion of rights. The losest analogy 8 ius referred instead to 8 the right thing to

do. :r 8 what is due according to the laws . ;ven those o$$entators (ho thin- that an ient and$edieval la( did not have a on e+t of rights o$+arable to our o(n agree that it +layed a far lesser rolein legal thought then o$+ared to $odern ti$es. %ights and rights tal- are +ervasive (ithin $oderndis ussions of la( and govern$ent the +ervasiveness (hi h so$eti$es leads to a ertain for$ of

onfusion. The dis ussion of rights often e,e$+lifies a basi +roble$ in on e+tual analysis< the (ayabstra t argu$ents an be o$e entangled in +arti ular +oli y vie(s.

2


3/19


4/19

!riticism 6 %ight is not +er$ission. # +erson $ay have right li$ited right over ultivatable +ie e land but no +er$ission to onstru t a house on it.

'almond follo(ing -!erin defines a right as an interest re ogni ed and +rote ted by a rule of right. )t isnot every interest that is a right but only those interests that have re eived re ognition by la(. Thus rightsand interest are not identi al. )nterests are things (hi h are to a $an5s advantage. >ut only those interest

be o$e rights that are of advantage to the o$$unity. When an interest be o$es a right there e,ist (ithres+e t to it a duty. %ight is any interest res+e t of (hi h is a duty and disregard of (hi h is a (rong.# ording to Bal$ond udi ial enfor eability of a right is essential.!riticism# though it i$+ortant to enfor e rights is i$+ortant to note that in $ost ases it $ay not be

+ossible to enfor e a right. The la( (ill not al(ays +rote t a right that annot al(ays be a s+e ifi +erfor$an e. &a( an only grant re$edy of da$ages.

=ample i$+erfe t rights6 rights barred by li$itation. #dditionally under ertain urisdi tions ourtsdo not ontrol ade=uate enfor e$ent $a hinery li-e ases of international la( but they do re ogni ee,isten e of ertain rights.

To avoid the diffi ulties around enfor e$ent it is safe to define legal right in ter$s of re ognition and +rote tion. ;ven international ourts (ill endeavour to +rote t the rights they re ogni e as $u h +ra ti able. This (ay the +rin i+le of effe tiveness and avoidan e of ourts issuing de rees in futility isa++li able.

3 N" +, O1 ,-G3 '

There are t(o o$+eting theories on nature of rights one e$+hasises on (ill or hoi e (hile the other e$+hasises on interest or benefit.

!e #ill t!eoryThe (ill theory by "art is u+held by those (ho vie( the +ur+ose of la( as being to grant the (idest

+ossible $eans of self e,+ression to individual the $a,i$u$ degree of self assertion. This theory is

losely related to the idea of sovereignty so that the only (ay of re on iling onfli ting (ills is by +ostulating su+erior (ill (hi h an over o$e all o++osition. The theory is also related to the ideas on$oral individualis$. The theory identifies the right bearer buy virtue of +o(er that he has over the duty in=uestion. "e an (aive it e,tinguish it enfor e it or leave it un6enfor ed (hat he does is his hoi e.# ording to this theory individual dis retion is the $ost distin tive feature of the on e+t of rights.Criticism:'otential vi ti$s of 3urder or torture annot (aive our duty not to torture or -ill. This theory fo uses on

+ro edural as+e ts as o++osed to substantive rights. ;,a$+le of guardian enfor ing hildren5s right tosue.

!e interest/ bene it t!eory The interest/ benefit theory by >entha$ and lyons. )t argues that the +ur+ose of rights is not to +rote t

individual assertions but as ertain interest. %ights are said to be benefits se ured for +ersons by rulesregulating relationshi+.

The +arti ular strength of the interest theory is that it overs all ty+es of rights in luding so io6e ono$irights as o++osed to the so alled liberties in the (ill theory and all ty+es of right bearers.Criticism:)t does not e,+lain (hy rights should be tied to the benefits in the first +la e.

e inition o d$ties

*


5/19

This dis ussion (ould be in o$+lete (ithout defining duties. # duty is roughly s+ea-ing an a t (hi hone ought to do an a t the o++osite of (hi h (ould be (rong. The duty and the a t ho(ever are notstri tly identi al. $ty is a ter$ that onveys a sense of $oral o$$it$ent to so$eone or so$ething. The$oral o$$it$ent is the sort that results in a tion and it is not a $atter of +assive feeling or $erere ognition. When so$eone re ogni es a duty that +erson o$$its hi$self/herself to the ause involved(ithout onsidering the self6interested ourses of a tions that $ay have been relevant +reviously. This isnot to suggest that living a life of duty +re ludes one fro$ the best sort of life but duty does involve so$esa rifi e of i$$ediate self6interest.

Ci ero (as an early +hiloso+her (ho a -no(ledged this +ossibility. "e dis usses duty in his (or- 8 %n &uty.' "e suggests that duties an o$e as a result of being hu$an one5s +arti ular +la e in life 2 ones

hara ter and one5s $oral e,+e tations for oneself. 7ro$ the root idea of obligation to serve or giveso$ething in return involved in the on e+tion of duty have s+rung various derivative uses of the (ordthus it is used of the servi es +erfor$ed by a $inister of a hur h by a soldier or by any e$+loyee or servant.

# ":"7;&D)#N '%)3;%

&a(yers and legal historians are fa$iliar (ith 4esley Ne# omb 3o! eld for other reasons. "e (asafter all a very fa$ous la( +rofessor (ho in his short life had a onsiderable i$+a t on analyti al

uris+ruden e and his influen e an be felt in a nu$ber of areas of legal thought today. "ohfeld (as bornin California in 1@ 9. "e graduated fro$ the University of California in 1901. "e (ent on to "arvard&a( B hool (here he served as editor of the %evie( and graduated in 190* (ith honours. 7ro$ 190A to191! "ohfeld taught at Btanford &a( B hool. "e then $oved to Eale &a( B hool (here he taught untilhis death in 191@.

%ight duty are so$eti$es used to indi ate a relation (hi h in reality does not refer to the sa$e $eaningas one generally understands by right6duty. 7or e,a$+le a $an says that he has a right to trade and if thisright i$+lies duty it $eans that others are bound by duty either to assist hi$ or refrain fro$ i$+ending

his trading a tivities. Bi$ilarly if a $an says that he has a right to $a-e a (ill and if this right i$+liesduty it $eans that others are bound by duty either to assist hi$ or refrain fro$ obstru ting hi$ fro$$a-ing a (ill. >ut in both these e,a$+les right i$+lies so$e other benefits or advantages given by a ruleof la( to an individual (hi h are free fro$ duty. To lear this onfusion in the use of the (ord right inlegal relationshi+s 'almond ! distinguished the various senses in (hi h the ter$ right an be used. Theanalysis of 'almond (as arried further by 3o! eld (ho distinguished four senses of legal right andestablished their logi al relationshi+. "e arried the analysis of right into four +airs of orrelatives ando++osites.

)n 191! 4esley Ne# omb 3o! eld +ublished a se$inal arti le about funda$ental legal ter$inology *."e argued that the des ri+tion of legal relationshi+s (as unne essarily o$+li ated by a la - of +re iseuse of legal ter$s. The "ohfeldian syste$ is ato$isti in that all legal relationshi+s an be des ribed (ithonly eight ter$s< right duty +o(er liability i$$unity disability +rivilege and Fno6right.F These ter$sfor$ a se$ioti syste$ < a set of interrelated ter$s (hose individual $eanings are not lear unless vie(edin the onte,t of the entire set of ter$s. There are four funda$ental rules that a++ly to the syste$asi definitions of the ter$s

3o! eld noti ed that even res+e ted urists onflate various $eanings of the ter$ right so$eti$ess(it hing senses of the (ord several ti$es in a single senten e. "e (rote that su h i$+re ision of language indi ated a on o$itant i$+re ision of thought and thus also of the resulting legal on lusions.)n order to both fa ilitate reasoning and larify rulings he atte$+ted to disa$biguate the ter$ rights by

brea-ing it into eight distin t on e+ts. To eli$inate a$biguity he defined these ter$s relative to oneanother grou+ing the$ into four +airs of 4ural :++osites and four +airs of 4ural Correlatives.

#s aforestated 3o! eld s (as a se$ioti syste$ i.e. it is diffi ult to understand the individual ter$s(ithout understanding all of the ter$s. This se tion defines the ter$s and the re$aining se tions (illelaborate the syste$.

# right he stated (as a lai$ against another +erson and the rightholder $ay su$$on the violen e of thestate to +revent or re$edy a violation of that right by the other +erson. )t is an enfor eable lai$ to

+erfor$an e a tion or forbearan e by another. >y stri t sense it is also used in a (ider sense to in ludeother legally re ognised benefits advantages interests (ithout onsidering (hether they have a

orres+onding legal duty or not. # right an be enfor ed by a la(suit against the +erson (ho has theorrelative duty. # +rivilege negates that right and duty and ty+i ally (ould be asserted as an affir$ative

defense in the la(suit.

# duty or a legal obligation is that (hi h one ought or ought not to do. +&uty+ and +right I are orrelativeter$s. When a right is invaded a duty is violated. # +rivilege is the negation of a duty < it is +er$ission todo an a t that (ould nor$ally be a brea h of a duty. )t is the legal relationshi+ of a +erson > (ho is

o$$anded by so iety to a t or to forbear for the benefit of another +erson # either i$$ediately or infuture (ho (ill be +enali ed by so iety for disobedien e.

# 'no#right' is the o++osite of right and the orrelative of a +rivilege< be ause the other +erson has a +rivilege one has Fno6rightF to su$$on the stateIs violen e to +revent or re$edy an a t that (ouldother(ise be a brea h of a duty. The legal relation of # to > (hen # (ith res+e t to > is free or at libertyto ondu t hi$self in a ertain $atter as he +leases (hen his ondu t is not regulated for the benefit of >

by the o$$and of so iety and (hen he is not threatened (ith any +enalty for disobedien e for thereason that so iety has $ade no o$$and.

'o(er is the ability to hange a legal relationshi+ e.g. through ontra ts and (ills . The legalrelationshi+ of a +erson # in (hose behalf so iety o$$ands nothing of another > . ) have a +o(er

(hen ) have the authority to alter $y o(n or so$eone else5s rights and duties. 4udges have the right to set +rison senten es so$eone (ho is +ro$ised so$ething has the right to enfor e or (aive the +ro$ise. 7or e,a$+le (hen so$eone $a-e an offer of a ontra t that gives the offerree the +o(er to reate a ontra t

by a e+ting the offer or not . )f the +o(er to reate the ontra t is e,er ised then both +arties haverights and duties (ith res+e t to ea h other. Courts have +o(er only if +laintiffs or +rose utors e,er isetheir +o(er to o$$en e a la(suit. Bovereign states are i$$une be ause ourts la - +o(er over the$ in(hi h ase ourts are said to have a disability (ith res+e t to sovereigns.

&iability is the +ossibility that oneIs legal relationshi+ (ill be hanged (hen another +erson uses their

H
http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#32http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#33http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#44http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#54http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#32http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#33http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#44http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#54


7/19

+o(er. The relation of # to > (hen # $ay be brought into ne( legal relations by the voluntary a t of >.)$$unity is an e, e+tion to the legal +o(er of another < in the absen e of the i$$unity the other +erson

ould su$$on the violen e of the state to hange the legal relationshi+. The relation of # to > (hen >has no legal +o(er has disability to affe t one or $ore of the e,isting legal relations of #.

Disability is the o++osite of +o(er and the orrelative of an i$$unity< one is disabled fro$ hanging a +arti ular legal relationshi+ that one (ould nor$ally be able to hange. The relation of # to > (hen by novoluntary a t of his o(n an # e,tinguish one or $ore of the e,isting legal relations of >. or as

onstitutional rights orrelate (ith disabilities of the govern$ent to a t in ertain (ays.

3ore o$+le, relationshi+s are onstru ted by des ribing $ulti+le relationshi+s. F:(nershi+F of land inthe "ohfeldian syste$ for e,a$+le is a olle tion of legal relationshi+s< J has the right to e, lude Efro$ the land J has i$$unity fro$ E e,+ro+riating the land J has the +o(er to grant a +rivilege to E toenter the land and J has the duty to not to use the land to har$ E.

;a h ter$ has one orrelative ter$ and a legal relationshi+ an be e,+ressed using the orrelative ter$. )f J has the right to e, lude E then E has the duty not to enter JIs land. The orrelative of J having the

+rivilege to -ill the ene$y soldier E is that E has F no#right F to sue J if J uses her +rivilege. Theorrelative of +o(er is liability. )f J has the +o(er to nullify her ontra t (ith C then C has the liability

that J $ay nullify the ontra t. 7inally if J has an i$$unity fro$ +rose ution by B then B is disabledfro$ +rose uting J.

=position o 3o! eld>s $ral ,elations!ips

"ohfeld5s eight ter$s are arranged in t(o tables of correlatives and 8opposite I that stru ture theinternal relationshi+s a$ong the different funda$ental legal rights. F !orrelatives F signifies that theseinterests e,ist on o++osing sides of a +air of +ersons involved in a legal relationshi+. )f so$eone has aright it e,ists (ith res+e t to so$eone else (ho has a duty. )f so$eone has a +rivilege it e,ists (ithres+e t to so$eone else (ho has no6right. )f so$eone has a +o(er it e,ists (ith res+e t to so$eone else(ho has a liability. )f so$eone has an i$$unity it e,ists (ith res+e t to so$eone else (ho has adisability.

4U%#& :'':B)T;B

%ight 'rivilege 'o(er )$$unity

No6right Duty Disability &iability

# +rivilege is the o++osite of a duty a no6right is the o++osite of a right. # disability is the o++osite of a +o(er an i$$unity is the o++osite of a liability

4U%#& C:%%;T)K;B

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#55http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#55http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#55http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#55http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#55http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/12/some-fundamental-legal-conceptions-as.html#55


8/19

Duty No6right &iability Disability

The table above re+resents four sets of various "ohfeldian ural relations. The to+ ro( ontains four ty+esof "ohfeldIs legal rights (hile the botto$ ro( indi ates the legal +osition entailed for the other +arty in

ea h of the ty+es of right. These are ural orrelatives. :n the other hand +airs of diagonally o++ositeele$ents in the first t(o olu$ns duty/liberty and right/no6right and those in the last t(o olu$nsliability/i$$unity and +o(er/disability are ural o++osites i.e. t(o legal +ositions that negate ea h

other. i.e.


Duty No6%ight &iability Disability

The ural orrelatives are indi ated by verti al arro(s and ural o++osites are indi ated by diagonal arro(s

in the diagra$ given above. The broad distin tion bet(een the first set of ter$s na$ely right duty +rivilege and no6right and the se ond set of ter$s na$ely +o(er liability i$$unity and disability is thatthe first set refers to stati relations (hile the se ond set refers to the hanging of relations. 7or instan esu++ose # o(ns a +ie e of land. # has a right to(ards others that they should not interfere (ith his land.# has a +rivilege to go on his land and olle t (ood fro$ it. # has a +o(er to allo( others to o$e over his land. # has an i$$unity against others in that they annot unilaterally alter his relations to the land. )tis #5s +rivilege to (al- on his +ie e of land (hile others have no right that # should not (al- over his

+ie e of land. "ere orrelatives are t(o sides of the sa$e legal relation. Bi$ilarly the o++osites o+erate(hi h are si$+ly indi ating logi al ontradi tions. ) have an i$$unity (hen so$eone else does not havethe +o(er to hange $y rights and duties. Bo ) have the right to freedo$ of religion be ause no one hasthe right +o(er to i$+ose a +arti ular religious +ra ti e on $e.

This use of the (ords right and privilege orres+ond res+e tively to the on e+ts of lai$ rights andliberty rights .

"ohfeld argued that right and duty are orrelative on e+ts i.e. the one $ust al(ays be $at hed by theother. )f # has a right against > this is e=uivalent to > having a duty to honour #Is right. )f > has no dutythat $eans that > has liberty i.e. > an do (hatever he or she +leases be ause > has no duty to refrainfro$ doing it and # has no right to +rohibit > fro$ doing so. ;a h individual is lo ated (ithin a $atri,of relationshi+s (ith other individuals. >y su$$ing the rights held and duties o(ed a ross all theserelationshi+s the analyst an identify both the degree of liberty L an individual (ould be onsidered tohave +erfe t liberty if it is sho(n that no6one has a right to +revent the given a t L and (hether the

on e+t of liberty is o$+rised by o$$only follo(ed +ra ti es thereby establishing general $oral +rin i+les and ivil rights .

,i !t

To say that J has a legal lai$6right $eans that he is legally +rote ted fro$ interferen e by E or againstEIs (ithholding of assistan e (ith res+e t to JIs +ro e t M. Conversely E (ho is to abstain fro$interferen e or is re=uired to +rovide assistan e in onne tion (ith JIs +ro e t M is under a orrelativeduty to do so. The orrelativity sti+ulation o$$ands that if J has a lai$6right against E this entails Eo(ing a duty to J for e,a$+le if J has a lai$6right that E should deliver hi$ goods this entails Ehaving a duty to deliver goods to J. :ne has to be very s+e ifi here. "e (ho has the right $ust be ableto +in+oint another +erson (ith a orrelative duty either in ter$s of shield or assistan e. "ohfeldIs

@
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rightshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rightshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Civil_rightshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Civil_rightshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rightshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rightshttp://wapedia.mobi/en/Civil_rights


9/19

insisten e that every right is a relation bet(een no $ore than t(o +ersons attra ted riti is$ fro$ amesPenner (ho riti i es 3o! eld>s analysis be ause it does not a ount for the distin tion bet(een rightsin personam and rights in rem . This is a very (ea- line of argu$ent be ause 3o! eld? in defen e aninsist as he does that a right held against the (hole (orld is in reality a set of various rights ad infinitum and ea h of those rights is held against a +arti ular +erson. The i$+ortan e of gras+ing"ohfeldian rights annot be overesti$ated. 7or instan e in ordinary +arlan e (e refer to an individualhaving a right not to be tortured. This is not a +right+ in the stri t "ohfeldian sense be ause the state or any other +erson is under no orrelative duty to abstain fro$ torturing +eo+le. )nstead the +ersonIs +right+ not to be sub e ted to torture is +rote ted by the array of nor$ative +rote tions guaranteed by the statethrough the general la(s against assault tres+ass et . Therefore the general right not to be assaulted setsthe +rote tive +eri$eter (ithin (hi h a +ersonIs legal IrightI to be free fro$ torture an e,ist.

Liberty

)n short liberty is $erely an absen e of a duty to abstain fro$ the a tion. The orrelativity of this uralrelationshi+ sho(s that the +erson against (ho$ the liberty is held has a no6right on erning the a tivityto (hi h the liberty relates. This ho(ever does not $ean that he hi$self does not have a liberty tointerfere in the a tivity. Bu++ose that ) a$ irritated by +eo+le (ho s$o-e in $y vi inity. ) $eet B

s$o-er in a +ubli +la e (ho starts to s$o-e in $y +resen e. ) as- hi$ to sto+ but B tells $e he has aIrightI to s$o-e here given the absen e of any legal +rohibitions . B is onfusing his entitle$ent. "e doesnot have a right in the "ohfeldian sense to s$o-e but $erely a liberty a (ea-er right . #lthough ) havea no6right on erning his a tivity of s$o-ing ) do have a liberty $yself (ithin the onstraints i$+osedon $e by BIs genuine rights to i$+ede his s$o-ing say by raising $y voi e or en ouraging other +eo+leto $a-e fun of B for his s$o-ing habit (hi h $ay $a-e hi$ sto+. The i$+ortant +oint is that in al$ostevery ir u$stan e outside the "obbesian state of nature a +erson (ho a ts in line (ith his liberty su has B (ould effe tively be shielded albeit i$+erfe tly fro$ the en roa h$ent on his liberty by +ossessionof so$e basi legal "ohfeldian rights su h as the rights against assault battery tres+ass et . "ohfeldIsanalysis therefore +rovides a lear understanding as to (hat the legal +osition of B is i.e. (hat rights hehas . #s (e an see had it not been for "ohfeld +roviding us (ith a +re ise vo abulary B (ould $ista-ehis liberty for a right and a ordingly (ould be unable to a urately re+ort the effe t of his entitle$ent."e (ould be (rong in saying to $e that ) annot sto+ hi$ fro$ s$o-ing be ause he has a right to s$o-ein a +ubli +la e sin e it +uts $e under no duty not to interfere (ith his s$o-ing. This on e again sho(sthe +ra ti al benefit of "ohfeldIs elegant and lear analysis. # +roble$ $ay arise (hen t(o o$+etingliberties arise in the arena of uris+ruden e. # good illustration of this is $edia la( in the (herebyfreedo$ of e,+ression and the right to +riva y are often onfli ting interests. The ourts try to balan ethese interests but the state traditionally is under no duty to +rovide for either interest. Therefore it tendsto be the onsideration of $oral and so ial nor$s and +rin i+les (hi h governs the udi iaryIs favour of one interest over the other. "ohfeld +oints out that it is the $i,ing u+ of value6driven ideals that has

onfused the $eaning of rights instead the larifi ation of rights should aid the udi iary to balan einterests (ithout letting a +ossible bias intrude.

Po#er

)n short a +o(er is oneIs ability to alter legal or $oral relations. 7or instan e ) an have the +o(er toenter into a ontra t (ith B (hereby he agrees for a onsideration to refrain fro$ s$o-ing in $y

+resen e. Thus ) have the +o(er to hange our legal relations in that ) $a-e B ontra tually bound as(ell as $yself . B thus has a liability (hi h is orrelative to +o(er in that he is liable to having his legalrelations altered by $y e,er ise of +o(er. "ohfeldIs analysis lears the +ra ti al $eaning of the ter$

+o(er on $yriad o asions la(yers have reated onfusion by referring to a IrightI to do so$ething(hen in fa t they $ean a "ohfeldian +o(er to do so$ething. Bu++ose J steals $y ar. Does he have aIrightI to sell it on to E )f J sells it to E (ho is the bona6fide +ur haser for value he an +ass good titleon to hi$. Thus J has a "ohfeldian +o(er to +erfor$ the sale of $y ar. "o(ever he is not at liberty in

9


10/19

"ohfeldIs sense to do so be ause liberty is the absen e of a duty not to do the a t (hereas here JIs saleof the stolen ar to E is a legal (rong and he thus learly brea hes his legal duty by selling it. #lthough hehas effe tive +o(er to transfer the title he does not have a liberty to do so. "o( onfusing (ould it be tosay that J has a right to sell the ar but he does not have a right to sell the ar in the absen e of "ohfeldIs

+re ise vo abulary "ohfeldIs analysis indeed hel+s to larify the legal +osition of the +arties and is ableto $ore a urately +redi t the effe t of the alterations in their res+e tive legal +ositions.

-mm$nity

)f J has an i$$unity against E it $eans that E has no +o(er to hange JIs legal +osition (ith res+e t toany entitle$ents overed by the i$$unity. 7or instan e if the state has no +o(er to +la e $e under aduty to (ear a hat (hen ) go out ) have i$$unity in that res+e t and the state a disability a orrelativeto i$$unity .

Correlation bet#een ,i !t and $ty

)n "ohfeld5s s he$e legal relations only e,ist bet(een legal +ersons and right is al(ays follo(ed byduty that is one i$+lies the other. Thus (hen one +erson is entitled by legal +ro ess to o$+el another

+erson to a t in a ertain (ay either to do or refrain fro$ doing right6duty relationshi+ o$es intoe,isten e. 7or e,a$+le # borro(s $oney fro$ > # is under the duty to re+ay the $oney to >. #gain #has a right not to be defa$ed by > > is under a duty not to do anything that defa$es #. %ight and dutyare orrelatives in "ohfeld5s s he$e but as soon as one established unenfor eable rights or i$+ersonalduties or absolute duties "ohfled5s s he$e of right duty relation fails. The relation of right and duty is not

+erfe t in all ases involving either a right or a duty.

The ad$inistration of usti e to a great e,tent de+ends on the inter6+lay of rights and duties. Thereforethe i$+ortan e of rights and duties annot be under esti$ated and this has led to the belief that these are

orrelative that is that the on e+t of right i$+lies the idea of duty they are si$+ly orrelatives of thesa$e legal relationshi+. :ne annot be on eived (ithout the other that is the e,er ise of one de+endson the e,isten e of the other. The right is al(ays in so$eone (ho has it against so$eone else (ho has

orrelative duty and vi e versa. This vie( is -no(n as logi al orrelativity of right and duty.

The relation of right and duty is also seen fro$ another angle (hi h states that in order to have a right a +erson $ust a e+t a duty as (ell that is right and duty $ust e,ist in the sa$e +erson at the sa$e ti$eand not as $aintained by logi al orrelative thesis that right and duty an e,ist in t(o different +ersons.This orrelativity of right and duty is -no(n as $oral orrelation. 7or e,a$+le if a +erson has a right tolife he $ust a e+t the duty to res+e t the life of others. "ere right and duty e,ist in the sa$e +ersonrather than in t(o different +ersons. 7ro$ a $oral +oint of vie( (here right and duty are not orrelativein the sa$e +erson it is $orally (rong. 3orality ho(ever $a-es an e, e+tion in the ase of hildrenand in a+a itated +ersons (ho have rights but annot have duties.

&a( does not follo( $orality in all situations and (here it follo(s it is only fro$ a +ra ti al andonvenient +oint of vie(. 7or e,a$+le in the +rin i+le of caveat emptor, a right to sell is in the seller but

it is the duty not of the seller but of the buyer to e,a$ine the goods to he - if there is any defe t inthe$. )n this situation the la( annot follo( $orality sin e it is not +ra ti al for the seller to -no( all thedefe ts in all goods he is dealing (ith and se ondly to dis ourage a buyer fro$ buying fro$ his sho+.The buyer is free to e,a$ine the goods and free to buy if he is satisfied (ith the =uality of the goods.7ro$ the $oral +oint of vie( thus the +rin i+le of caveat emptor is (rong. 7ro$ the legal +oint of vie(the +rin i+le is a sound one sound fro$ the +oint of vie( of trade and o$$er e for business la(. )t is

+ra ti ality that $a-es su h a +rin i+le legally orre t. )n ertain situations la( follo(s $orality as in thease of the right to life. # +erson in order to have a right to life also has a duty to res+e t the life of others.

10


11/19

7or e,a$+le a $urderer is onde$ned to death not be ause he has violated the right to life of another +erson but be ause he has violated his duty i$+osed on hi$ by ri$inal la( to res+e t the life of othersand therefore he is not (orthy of his right to life. )n right to life both right and duty o6e,ist in the sa$e

+erson the violation of one violates the other. "ere right and duty are both onditioned but the ri$inal5sinvasion of his vi ti$5s right did not absolve the vi ti$ of his orres+onding duties to the ri$inal theright to +unish is reserved to the state (hi h i$+oses duties. The fa t that a $an has been onde$ned todeath does not li ense his ailor to beat hi$ or allo( virtuous iti ens to lyn h hi$. "ere both right adduty reside in the sa$e +erson but it does not $ean that la( is follo(ing $orality. )t si$+ly $eans thatfor la( it is onvenient and +ra ti al to -ee+ both right and duty residing in the sa$e +erson.

#+art fro$ the $oral and logi al orrelation of right and duty so$e urists li-e #ustin A Oelsen H andDugui t $aintain that rights and duties are not ne essarily orrelated. #ustin gives a list of duties (hi hhe regards as absolute duties (ithout orrelative rights these duties are duties not regarding +ersonsindefinitely for e,a$+le duties to(ards o$$unity self6regarding duties and duties to(ards thesovereign. :n lose e,a$ination of #ustin5s list of absolute duties it be o$es lear that there $ight beduties that do not orrelate to rights but the very idea of absolute duties that he advo ates is not orre t.Duties not regarding +erson are not duties in the legal sense. #ustin hi$self advo ates that la(s of Podare not the on ern of la(yers and are not +art of a legal syste$. "o( then are duties to(ards Pod legalduties

Oelsen ho(ever believes that legal duties are the essen e of la( for la( is a syste$ of 8 oughts . &egalrights are only in idents and the la( $ay dis+ense (ith the$. Thus the orrelation bet(een right and dutythough o$$on enough is not ne essary one. There $ay be duties that have no orrelative rights su h asso ial (elfare and +ubli la( duties. 7or e,a$+le the duty to sto+ on a traffi light (hen it is red.3oreover if every duty orrelates to a right as &loyd @ stating Oelsen5s +osition states it (ould lead to odd

on lusions that the onde$ned ri$inal had a right to be hanged.

Duguit regards that duties are the essen e of a legal syste$. ;a h individual as a $e$ber of so iety has afun tion to +erfor$ and his fun tion is a so ial fun tion and leads to the +erfor$an e of so ial duties. "ere e ts all individual rights an individual as su h has no right +o(ers +rivileges i$$unities instead he

+erfor$s duties and obligations. %ight Duguit says is an advantage (hi h a +erson se ures after +erfor$ing his duty. Thus the orrelation of right and duty is not su h as advo ated by Bal$ond and"ohfeld but it is fro$ duty that right follo(s as an in ident and not as a se+arate inde+endent ategory.

&iberty and No6right

&iberty $eans (hat one an do for oneself (ithout any interferen e by others. :r as Bal$ond 9 says thes+here of one5s legal liberty is that s+here of a tivity (ithin (hi h the la( is ontent to leave one alone.legal liberty is the benefit that one derives fro$ the absen e of legal duty. 7or e,a$+le # has a liberty to(al- on his land or # has a liberty to e,+ress his o+inion in +ubli . "ere # has no +re ise relation (ithothers. &a( (ill +rote t # if anybody interferes (ith his liberty. # right an only be e,er ised by affe tingothers but liberty is e,er ised (ithout affe ting others. The o++osite of liberty is duty. Thus one an have

either liberty or duty one annot have both at the sa$e ti$e. The orrelative of liberty is no right. Bin ein ;nglish language there is no (ord that (ill e,+ress the o++osite of right in the sense in (hi h legalright is used here re ourse to no right is pis aller. "ohfeld oined this (ord to -ee+ (ithin the legalter$inology and at the sa$e ti$e to +rovide for the o++osite or right. No right si$+ly $eans the absen eof right.

A #ustin o+. it. +. *00H W. 7ried$ann )egal heory &ondon< Btevens G Bons 19H +. 2@0 he process of continental law in the -ineteenth !entury, o+. it. ++. 16 *

@ D. &loyd he idea of law 'enguin >oo-s 19 ! '. !129 Bal$ond o+. it. +. 22A

11


12/19

'aton 10 ho(ever +oints out that there is a diffi ulty in lin-ing together liberty and +rivilege. &ibertyovers all those a ts that are +ri$arily la(ful for all (hereas +rivilege overs those a ts that are prima

facie unla(ful but are allo(ed in ertain ir u$stan es. >ut this differen e does not affe t "ohfled5ss he$e be ause both liberty and +rivilege fall (ithin the sa$e ategory and retain for$al sy$$etry.&iberty is a broader on e+t that +rivilege (hi h is a narro( on e+t. )n ontent both i$+ly the sa$ething.

'o(er and &iability

'o(er in la( is defined as ability by one to hange a legal relation by his o(n (ill either hi$self or of other +ersons. 7or e,a$+le $a-ing a (ill sale of one5s +ro+erty gift et . are ases of e,er ise of su hability. # by $a-ing a sale of his house to > $a-es > the o(ner of the house and hanges his legal

+osition in res+e t to the house. 'o(er is +ubli +o(er (hen it is e,er ised by an agent of the state.'rivate +o(er is that +o(er (hen it is e,er ised by a +erson in his o(n interest. 'o(er rese$bles libertysin e both de+end on an individual5s free hoi e but both are different fro$ right in the stri t sense sin ethey do not orres+ond to duty.

The orrelative of +o(er is liability and it is used in both the onditions of legal hange for the better or for the (orse. 7or e,a$+le # $ay gift his house to > and thus $a-e > the o(ner of his beautiful house itis thus to >5s advantage. >ut su++ose # inherits +ro+erty (hi h is burdened (ith debt $ore than the valueof +ro+erty it is to #5s disadvantage. >ut both are ases of liability.

)$$unity and Disability

)$$unity is defined as an e,e$+tion as an e,e$+tion fro$ la(. &a( is there but a +erson is e,e$+tedfro$ its o+eration. )$$unity is not +rivilege. )n i$$unity a +erson is e,e$+ted fro$ the o+eration of la(

but in the ase of +rivilege a +erson is allo(ed to do so$ething (hi h is other(ise illegal. )n so$eountries govern$ent de+art$ents e,er ising sovereign +o(ers annot be sued in tort and the 'resident

or the 'ri$e 3inister annot be +ersonally liable in res+e t of any ontra t $ade or assuran e given for the +ur+oses of the state. These are e,a$+les of i$$unities.

The effe t of both is the sa$e but their $ode of o+eration is different. )$$unity $eans an inability of a +erson to hange legal relations of another +erson unilaterally. )t is freedo$ fro$ +o(er of another.Disability is si$+ly absen e of +o(er.

Distin tion >et(een %ight and 'o(er

%ight and +o(er are not the sa$e. # +erson $ay have right but no +o(er 11. 7or e,a$+le su++ose # o(es> so$e $oney. # does not +ay and the debt be o$es ti$e barred. No( > has a right against # but has no

+o(er to re over his $oney.

Distin tion >et(een Duty and &iability

&iability is a +ro edural on e+t of la(. Thus liability an only be defined by an instan e of a +ro eduralnature. 7or e,a$+le su++ose # de+osits Oshs. A00 (ith the ban-. The ban- is not under duty to $a-e the

+ay$ent to # unless # $a-es a de$and. When # $a-es a de$and that is e,er ise +o(er the ban- is +la ed under a liability to $a-e the +ay$ent and the ban- be o$es duty bound to +ay the su$ of Oshs.A00 the liability reates a duty.

10 P.W. 'aton $urisprudence :,ford< Calerendon 'ress 19 1 +. 29211 *. v arnsley /etropolitan orough !ouncil 012345 1 6)*5 1789: anks v. ransport *egulation oard 0;ic.5 0124


13/19


14/19

There annot be a right (ithout a duty. #n endless a o+hony of de$ands by interest grou+s for rights has be o$e a do$inant feature in Oenya. #t the sa$e ti$e there is a deafening silen e on the =uestion of individual res+onsibility. The ti$e has o$e to realise and to e$+hasise that rights (hether $aterial or

+oliti al de+end on the dis harge of duties. Wealth and +ros+erity are reated by effort. :nly ontinuingeffort an sustain the$. "istory has ontinually de$onstrated that the greatest of ivilisations de line andfall (hen they su u$b to indulgen e at the e,+ense of dis i+line and endeavour. The fate of ;gy+tianand %o$an ivilisations are +ri$e e,a$+les.

'erha+s (e should also add that the issue of funda$ental rights have over the years a =uired aninternational di$ension (hi h an no longer be ignored. 4usti e Nya$u in art!a


15/19

but in res+e t of (hi h no "ohfeldian orrelative is found. "ohfled $ay have been orre t (hen hestated that every right in the stri t sense i$+lies the e,isten e of a orrelative duty not every dutyi$+lies a orrelative right. Non orrelative duties do not see$ to fit "ohfeld5s stru ture. >y his failurehe $isses the +oint that duties are not all of one ty+e. :ther on e+ts are e,+lained inade=uately 7or e,a$+le +o(er is des ribed in ter$s of ontrol but ontrol itself is not further dis ussed< right in thestri t sense is des ribed in ter$s of lai$ but lai$ing itself is far fro$ an un ontentious or una$biguous a tivity. 7or e,a$+le does a right i$+ly a lai$ or i$+ly a right to lai$.

A. Consider a (ell6-no(n e,a$+le< a +erson J has a $oral duty to e,+ress haritableness e,+ressed bygiving $oney to harity . #n anti6"ohfeldian (ould argue that su h a duty is un orrelated (ith the$oral right of the +oor E to re eive al$s and thus the allegation is that this $oral relationshi+ annot

be a o$$odated by "ohfeldIs Correlativity #,io$. # right is an entitle$ent. :n this analysis (hatare o$$only alled rights to e$+loy$ent (elfare et are not rights. # right to e$+loy$ent is$eaningless be ause there is no +erson (ho is under a duty to e$+loy. Welfare is not a right. )t is a

+rivilege (hi h is given to ertain +ersons.

"ohfeld5s definitions an be evaluated as hel+ful or onfusing but not as e$+iri ally true or false. )t(ould $a-e no $ore sense to state that one had dis overed a "ohfeldian lai$6right (ithout

orres+onding duty than it (ould to say that one had dis overed a $arried ba helor. The =uestion is only(hether "ohfled5s +ro+osed analyti al larifi ations are $ore hel+ful than onfusing or $isleading and$ost o$$entators see$ to thin- that they are.

7or all these faults "ohfeld5s s he$e re$ains a starting +oint for $u h onte$+orary rights analysis andhas been found useful by $oral +hiloso+hers and for that $atter anthro+ologists and o$+arativela(yers as (ell as urists. )ts value essentially lies in its enabling us to redu e any legal transa tion or $oral relationshi+ to relative si$+li ity and +re ision and to re ogni e the universality. Classi i ation o ,i !ts and $ties

)n an effort to further larify (hat rights and duties several des ri+tive lassifi ations of rights and dutieshave been for$ulated. These lassifi ations are not $utually e, lusive to the e,tent that one right or duty

an fit into the different lassifi ations.

ypes o ,i !ts

*. P$bli and Pri(ate ,i !ts'ubli rights are those rights (hi h are reated (ith the (hole o$$unity in vie(. 7or e,a$+lefunda$ental rights are +ubli rights. These rights are not reated for the benefit of an individual but for the benefit and interest of the (hole o$$unity.

'rivate rights on the other hand are those rights that are vested in the individual for his/her benefit. # right

arising under +rivate ontra t is a +ri$e e,a$+le of (hat +rivate rights are. 7or e,a$+le a ontra t bet(een +arties regarding the +ur hase of a vehi le a(ards those +arties ertain rights (hi h they $ayele t to e,er ise or re e t.

)$+ortantly +rivate rights $ust be +la ed (ithin the fra$e(or- of +ubli +oli y. The ob e t of +rivaterights $ust not go against +ubli +oli y. Therefore ontra ts to a =uire the servi es of a +rostitute or tosell drugs do not onfer any legally e,er isable rights.

2. Primary and 'an tionin ,i !ts# right that e,ists inde+endently and has so$e other sour e other than (rongs is referred to as a +ri$aryright. %ight to one5s +ie e of land is a +ri$ary right. >rea h of a +ri$ary right gives rise to a ne( right

1A


16/19

referred to as a san tioning right. Therefore a san tioning right originates fro$ so$e (rong for e,a$+lethe brea h of #5s +ie e of land by >5s tres+ass gives # the right to lai$ da$ages or o$+ensation for that

brea h.

;nfor e$ent of san tioning rights in $ost situations is through the i$+osition of a +e uniary +enalty. Thedefendant is so$eti$es o$+elled to give u+ the +e uniary value of so$e benefit (hi h he (rongfullyobtained at the e,+ense of the +laintiff. The +laintiff $ay also be ordered to +ay the +laintiff5s loss.

)t $ust be noted that it is not al(ays +ossible to enfor e +ri$ary rights. Can one for e,a$+le se ures+e ifi +erfor$an e in a $arriage ontra t )t (ould be ine,+edient and a brea h of the defendant5shu$an rights to order hi$/her to $arry the +laintiff. 'e uniary o$+ensation in $ost ases suffi es. )t isthus i$+ra ti al to enfor e this right. )t is +ossible ho(ever to enfor e a brea h of +ro$ise to $arry.

Can one legally $ove the ourt to order for s+e ifi +erfor$an e in relation to his on ugal rights Beethe ames


17/19

i$+erfe t right ho(ever an be $ade +erfe t by a tions of the debtor su h as his a -no(ledge$ent of the debt and/or +aying it in +art. #n i$+erfe t right in the real sense $ust be so by a de laration of la(.The Btatute of &i$itations # t Ca+ 22 of the &a(s of Oenya details situations (here +erfe t rights

be o$e i$+erfe t rights. This statute does not destroy the right but $erely redu es it fro$ a +erfe t rightto an i$+erfe t right.

6. Le al and $itable ,i !tsThese t(o se+arate rights have their origins fro$ t(o syste$s of la( in ;ngland ad$inistered in the

ourts of Co$$on &a( and the Court of Chan ery. &egal rights are those (hi h (ere re ogni ed by theourts of Co$$on &a( (hereas e=uitable rights are those (hi h (ere re ogni ed by the Court of

Chan ery.

;=uitable rights have a $ore +re arious e,isten e than legal rights. Penerally (here there are t(oin onsistent legal rights lai$ed adversely by different +ersons over the sa$e thing the first in ti$egenerally +revails. Q1R T(o in onsistent e=uitable rights follo( the sa$e rule. "o(ever (here a legal ande=uitable right onfli t the legal (ill a+art fro$ the statute +revail over and destroy the e=uitable eventhough subse=uent to it in origin +rovided that the o(ner of the legal right a =uired it for value (ithoutnoti e of the +rior e=uity. 7. Personal and Proprietary ,i !ts# $an5s +ro+rietary rights generally relates to his estate assets or his +ro+erty on the other hand a $an5s

+ersonal rights onstitutes his status or +ersonal ondition as o++osed to his estate. # $an (ho o(ns amatatu, * houses and shares in blue hi+ o$+anies in Oenya has those ite$s as +art of his estate but if that $an has no freedo$s la -s iti enshi+ then the la - or +resen e of those rights refle ts his standingin the la(.

The distin tion therefore lies in the fa t that +ro+rietary rights are valuable (hereas +ersonal rights arenot. 'ersonal rights refle t the +erson5s (ell6being (hereas +ro+rietary rights refle t a $an5s (ealth.'ersonal rights are $erely uridi al not e ono$i . 'ersonal rights are o$$only found in +ubli la((hereas +ro+rietary rights are $ost often (ithin the s+here of +rivate la(.

&. ,i !ts in rem and ,i !ts in personamThese rights are dra(n fro$ ivil and anon la( literally inter+reted Hus in rem rights against or inres+e t of a thing (hile Hus in personam a right against or in res+e t of a +erson.

# right in rem orres+onds to a duty i$+osed u+on +ersons in general (hile a right in personam is onlyavailable against +arti ular +ersons. )n other (ords a right in rem is an interest +rote ted against the(hole (orld (hereas a right in personam is an interest +rote ted solely against s+e ifi individuals.%ights in rem offer +rote tion against the (hole (orld. # o+yright holder for e,a$+le has rights againstthe (hole (orld fro$ brea hing his o+yright. # land o(ner as (ell has a right in rem against the (orld

+reventing +ersons fro$ tres+assing on his land.

%ights in rem have so$eti$es been referred to as negative rights as in $ost ir u$stan es they arede$anding non6interferen e (ith the other +erson5s rights. )t has been +ro+ounded that rights in rem and personam also fit (ithin hohfeld5s stru ture of orrelativesof liberties +o(ers and i$$unities. '. 4 7it gerald Q2R noted the freedom of speech, within its limits, is aliberty in rem while a licence to walk over the land of a particular landowner is a liberty in personam.

he power to make a contractual offer is a power in rem while the power to accept an offer made and thus to create a contract is a power in personam availing only against the person who has made the offer.

9. ,i !ts in re propria and ,i !ts in re aliena1
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=Jd8O_KZeLH0.en.&am=!Sg304q2GSli5Bbvy0fc6Qqw-V8VA6EHLDxRDhrc92XJp#_ftn1http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=Jd8O_KZeLH0.en.&am=!Sg304q2GSli5Bbvy0fc6Qqw-V8VA6EHLDxRDhrc92XJp#_ftn2http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=Jd8O_KZeLH0.en.&am=!Sg304q2GSli5Bbvy0fc6Qqw-V8VA6EHLDxRDhrc92XJp#_ftn1http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=Jd8O_KZeLH0.en.&am=!Sg304q2GSli5Bbvy0fc6Qqw-V8VA6EHLDxRDhrc92XJp#_ftn2


18/19

%ights an also be divided into these t(o ategories. $ura in re propria refers to right over ones +ro+ertyand Hura in re aliena translates into right over another5s +ro+erty. # right in re aliena is one (hi h li$its$ore general rights belonging to so$e other +erson in res+e t of the sa$e sub e t $atter. They are alsoreferred as en u$bran es. The (ord en u$bran es herein being utili ed in a (ide sense.

The right li$ited no longer +ossesses its full s o+e as the other right derogates it. # tenant in $ostinstan es li$its the lando(ner5s te$+orary use of his +ro+erty. The li$iting right an be referred to as thedominant (hile the li$ited/derogated right the servient . This then $eans that the holder of the do$inanthas a right in re aliena (hereas the o(ner of the servient right has a right in re propria .

*ights in re aliena should run on urrent (ith the right in re propria . This on urren e $ay o ur invarious degrees but $ust be +resent. Penerally the servient should not be transferable (ithout thedo$inant other(ise it (ould not be an en u$bran e. #n en u$bran e on land for e,a$+le should +assdes+ite hange of title. ;,a$+les of en u$bran es running (ith their servient rights at la( are ease$entsleases and legal $ortgages. #gree$ents for leases an e=uitable $ortgage a restri tive ovenant as to theuse of land (ill run (ith their res+e tive rights in e=uity but not at la(.

ypes o $ties

Duties have been lassified as follo(s *. Positi(e and Ne ati(e $ties# +ositive duty i$+lies the +erfor$an e of so$e a t on the +erson to (ho$ it is i$+osed. 7or e,a$+le(hen you board a matatu that ta-es you to your intended destination you are under a duty to +ay the

ondu tor for the servi e rendered. # negative duty on the other hand i$+lies abstention fro$ an a t by a +erson on (ho$ it is i$+osed. # landlord (ho has leased his +ro+erty is under duty to allo( his tenant=uiet +ossession. "e is +revented fro$ a tions that (ould interfere (ith his tenant5s =uiet +ossession of the +ro+erty. 2. Primary and 'e ondary $ties'ri$ary duties are those duties (hi h e,ist inde+endently of any other duty. This duty does not arise fro$

any (rong. The duty not to har$ anyone is a +ri$ary duty. )t e,ists inde+endently. # se ondary duty isthat (hi h arises dire tly fro$ (rongs o$$itted. This duty5s only +ur+ose is to enfor e another duty.Where one +arty brea hes a ontra t (ith another +arty that +arty has a duty to +ay da$ages to the +arty(ho$ brea h has been o asioned against. The duty to +ay da$ages is therefore a se ondary duty.

Biblio rap!y

*. ,aymond 4a )s? +nderstandin $rispr$den e.

2. 1einber ? ? 3$man $ties and 3$man ,i !ts. D*9&0E

%. 1rey ,.G? -nterests and ,i !ts.

1@


19/19

. (((.oag.govt.n /200 / usto$s6servi e/glossary.ht$ 5. Clos)ey? 3. ? oral ,i !ts and "nimals D*97&E 22.

6. 12 th ;dition 'almond on $rispr$den e? +ni(ersal La# P$blis!in Co. Pri(ate Limited .

7. Bent!am? eremy 1@*! Prin iples o t!e Ci(il Code , in 4ohn >o(ring ed. he 6orks of $eremy entham Kolu$e 1 ;dinburgh< Willia$ Tait

&. "$stin? o!n? 1@@A .Le t$res on $rispr$den e? or t!e P!ilosop!y o Positi(e La# Ath edition %. Ca$+bell ed. 2 volu$es &ondon< 4ohn 3urray.

19
http://www.google.co.ke/url?q=http://www.oag.govt.nz/2007/customs-service/glossary.htm&ei=_KALS-jNHIXoM9H2qMsC&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CB8QpAMoDA&usg=AFQjCNE2xFYslVeESvTRisQBhi8Io7O3AQhttp://www.google.co.ke/url?q=http://www.oag.govt.nz/2007/customs-service/glossary.htm&ei=_KALS-jNHIXoM9H2qMsC&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CB8QpAMoDA&usg=AFQjCNE2xFYslVeESvTRisQBhi8Io7O3AQ

Documents

Seminar 4- Rights and Duties