Every lawyer who went to a legit Law School is taught about the doctrines of Clean Hands and Dirty Hands in Law of Equity which is a mandatory core subject.
If you studied law, you studied equity.
The clean hands doctrine is an equitable legal principle in which one argues that someone is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because he or is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint with dirty hands.
In plain language, this means that one cannot go to court to seek justice when he or she is the Alpha and Omega of the very injustice.
The doctrine of Clean Hands is stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”.
However, this is a matter of protocol as was characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says; “A dirty dog will not have justice by the court.”
The clean hands doctrine is used in law to deny equitable or legal relief to anyone that has engaged in improper conduct.
Furthermore, there is another equity maxim that is tied to the doctrine of Clean Hands which says; “He who seeks equity must do equity:”
This maxim give rise to meaning that in law and equity a remedy will only be provided where you have acted equitable in the transaction.
This maxim is discretionary in nature and is concerned with the future conduct of the a person who will complain as per decided in the case of Cheese v Thomas in 1994.
Ironically, the maxim; “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands is linked to the maxim above and relates to the past conduct of parties.
In principle, both maxims say that people must not have had any involvement in fraud or misrepresentation or they will not succeed in equity as ruled in the case of Overton v Banister in 1844.
In Overton v Banister case, a beneficiary failed in their action against the trustees to pay her back the assets of the trust she had already received as a result of a misrepresentation of her age.
Today, with dismay, I have read that 71 MRA recruits who were fired for being hired fraudulently and with no due process are demanding a staggering K20 billion for unfair dismissal.
I think this is stupid and illegal.
They cannot come to seek equity (and justice) with dirty hands and (with injustice) because they were recruited into that job illegally.
You cannot go to a shop with fake money to buy things and when the owner of the shop chase you out of the shop, you surely cannot tell him or her to give you compensation for chasing you with real money. If you came with fake money, you and your fake money have no value.
In the same breadth and depth, the 71 fired MRA recruits have no locus standi (ground) to claim K20 billion from the taxpayers because they fraudently got recruited by fraudsters.
Their lawyers must’ve studied law and therefore it is obvious that they were taught about the maxims of equity including the doctrines of Clean Hands and Dirty Hands and know that those with dirty hands cannot seek equity.
Equity, they say, follow the law. The law follow justice. But in the thick of things there are lawyers.
A good lawyer acts for his or her clients but the best lawyers act for justice.
This case of 71 fired MRA recruits must be fought with all might and power as a nation. This is a scam. Let the fired recruits sue those who fraudently hired them personally not the taxpayers.
I dare say, dirty hands must not shake clean hands.
A dirty dog will not have justice by the court.Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :