The legal maxim Delegatus Non Potest Delegare is a principle that means "A delegate cannot further delegate." In essence, it holds that when a person or body is entrusted with a specific duty or power, they cannot delegate that power or responsibility to another person or body unless specifically authorized to do so by the law or the instrument under which the power was granted. This maxim applies to situations where powers are given by statute or contract to a particular authority, and that authority cannot delegate its duties to a third party without express permission.
Explanation of the Maxim
1. Principle
of Non-Delegation: This maxim arises from the principle that when a person or
body is granted powers, especially statutory or fiduciary powers, those powers
are entrusted to them personally or specifically. Such powers cannot be
delegated to someone else unless the law explicitly allows it. This ensures
that those entrusted with the responsibility remain accountable for their
actions.
2. Exceptions:
There are, however, exceptions to this principle. In some cases, the original
authority may be allowed to delegate specific duties or powers to others,
particularly if the statute or instrument explicitly grants such authority.
Decided Cases on Delegatus Non Potest Delegare
1. Bamford
v. Turnley (1860)
o Case
Summary: In this case, the court dealt with a situation where a person was
given the responsibility of collecting taxes. The individual tried to delegate
his duties to someone else.
o Court's
Ruling: The court held that the person could not delegate the responsibility of
tax collection to someone else because the delegation of this specific duty was
not authorized by the statute.
o Legal
Significance: This case affirmed the maxim Delegatus Non Potest Delegare,
establishing that an individual or authority to whom a duty is assigned cannot
delegate it unless the law expressly permits delegation.
2. Kaiser v.
Smit (1952)
o Case
Summary: The case involved a situation where a statutory body was given
specific authority to make regulations. The body attempted to delegate its
power to another agency.
o Court's
Ruling: The court ruled that the body could not delegate the power to make
regulations to another agency because there was no provision in the law
allowing such delegation.
o Legal
Significance: This case further reinforced the application of the maxim,
underscoring that statutory powers granted to a particular body could not be
transferred to another without explicit authorization.
3. Attorney
General v. Sillem (1864)
o Case
Summary: The case involved a provision in which a statute gave a local
authority the power to make rules and regulations for the conduct of its
affairs. The authority tried to delegate some of its rule-making powers to
another body.
o Court's
Ruling: The court held that the local authority could not delegate its
rule-making powers to another body, emphasizing that the delegation of
statutory powers requires express permission from the legislature.
o Legal
Significance: This case solidified the understanding that authorities cannot
delegate powers conferred upon them unless the enabling statute explicitly
allows it.
4. R v. Home
Secretary, ex parte Hosenball (1977)
o Case
Summary: This case involved the Home Secretary’s power to exercise certain
functions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1976.
The Home Secretary delegated these powers to lower officials, and the legality
of this delegation was challenged.
o Court's
Ruling: The House of Lords upheld the delegation, concluding that the Home
Secretary had the authority to delegate these functions because the statute
permitted such delegation.
o Legal
Significance: This case clarified that the maxim Delegatus Non Potest Delegare
is subject to the specific terms of the statute. If the statute allows
delegation, it can take place. This case represents the exception to the
general rule where delegation is authorized.
5. R v.
Licensing Justices of the Borough of Ealing (1947)
o Case
Summary: The case dealt with whether the local licensing authority could
delegate its authority to grant licenses to a sub-committee.
o Court's
Ruling: The court held that the licensing authority could delegate the
decision-making to a sub-committee, as long as the delegation was consistent
with the enabling legislation.
o Legal
Significance: The decision demonstrated the application of the Delegatus Non
Potest Delegare principle but also showed that where the statute expressly or
implicitly permits delegation, it may be valid.
Conclusion
The maxim Delegatus Non Potest Delegare ensures that the
original person or body given authority remains responsible for the exercise of
that power. However, this principle is not absolute. In certain circumstances,
if the enabling statute or legal framework explicitly permits the delegation of
duties, then such delegation is valid, as shown by various cases like R v. Home
Secretary and R v. Licensing Justices of the Borough of Ealing. Therefore, the
key takeaway is that delegation is prohibited unless it is expressly authorized
by the empowering statute or legal document.
Comments
Post a Comment