Describe the rule of 'Ejusdem Generis'. Discuss with help of decided cases.
Answer-10
The rule of Ejusdem Generis is a principle used in the
interpretation of statutes to limit the meaning of general words to things of
the same kind or nature as those specifically mentioned before them. It is
particularly applied when a list of specific items is followed by general
words, and it helps to avoid ambiguity by interpreting the general words to
cover only things that are similar to the specific items.
Key Features:
1. Specific
to General Pattern: The rule applies where specific words or terms are followed
by more general terms. The general terms will be understood to include only
things that fall within the same category or class as the specific terms
mentioned.
2. Limitations
on General Words: General terms are not to be interpreted in their broadest
possible sense but are restricted to the same class of items or category that
the specific terms fall into.
3. Used to
Clarify Ambiguity: This rule resolves ambiguity in legal language, especially
in statutes that contain general terms after listing specific examples. It
limits the general term to the meaning that fits with the specific terms used
before it.
Application of the Rule:
• General
Words: These are words that are vague and broad in scope.
• Specific
Words: These are words that are concrete and limited in scope, used to describe
a particular class or type of thing.
• Example:
If a statute refers to “vehicles, cars, trucks, bicycles, and other vehicles,”
the general word “other vehicles” will be interpreted to mean something of the
same nature as cars, trucks, and bicycles, such as motorcycles, but not
airplanes or boats, which are in a different class.
Decided Cases:
1. Bennett
v. Industrial Accident Commission (1919): In this case, the court applied the
Ejusdem Generis rule to interpret a statute referring to "vehicles,
locomotives, and other machinery." The court held that the phrase
"other machinery" was restricted to machinery of the same kind or
class as locomotives and vehicles, thereby excluding machinery like printing
presses or computers that did not share the same nature as locomotives or
vehicles.
2. Attorney
General v. Hinks (2000): In this case, the court relied on Ejusdem Generis to
interpret a statute that listed specific offenses and followed them with a
general phrase "any other offense." The court ruled that the general
term would be understood to refer to offenses of the same nature as those
explicitly listed, ensuring the application of the rule.
3. R v.
Bishop of Oxford (1877): This case involved the interpretation of the phrase
"tithes, rents, profits, and other income" in a statute. The court
used Ejusdem Generis to argue that the general term "other income"
should be interpreted in a manner consistent with tithes, rents, and profits,
meaning it should refer to income of a similar nature rather than including all
possible forms of income.
4. Inland
Revenue Commissioners v. Frere (1965): In this case, the court used Ejusdem
Generis to interpret the term “interest, annuities, and other annual payments”
in tax legislation. The court ruled that “other annual payments” should be
understood to refer to payments similar to interest and annuities, thus
excluding other forms of annual payments that didn't share the same
characteristics.
Steps in Applying Ejusdem Generis:
1. Examine
the specific words: Identify the list of specific items or terms in the
statute.
2. Identify
the general word: Look for a general term following the specific list.
3. Determine
the category: Analyze the specific items to identify the category or class they
represent.
4. Restrict
the general term: Interpret the general word in the context of that category or
class, limiting its meaning to things of the same kind.
Limitations of Ejusdem Generis:
• Wide
discretion of the legislature: If the legislature’s intention is clear from the
context, the rule should not restrict the interpretation unduly. Sometimes, the
use of the word "other" may be intended to include a wider range than
just the same class.
• Ambiguity:
The rule may not apply where the legislative intent is too vague or unclear,
and the court may need to consider other rules of statutory interpretation,
like the literal rule or purposive approach.
Conclusion:
The Ejusdem Generis rule is an essential tool for
interpreting statutes with specific and general terms. It ensures that general
terms are not given an overly broad meaning but are confined to the same class
as the specific words preceding them. By relying on this rule, courts avoid
unintended interpretations, and it promotes clarity and fairness in the
application of the law.
Comments
Post a Comment