How can I not be directly affected by my son’s case?
Please keep my identity anonymous. I am a retired woman nearing her 60s. Sometime back I gave my beloved 29-year-old son M the last of my pennies worth P10,000 to commence a business project with his then friend P. Part of the contract between them was for the said friend to buy catering materials to the tune of P15,000 (including the P10,000 my son contributed.) To my utter dismay, my son’s friend squandered the money and the intended business never saw the light of the day.
I reported the matter to the customary court in our village with M’s consent and P was ordered to pay back the P10,000. Now P has appealed the decision to a higher court. The basis of his appeal is that the customary court decision misdirected itself, as I do not have direct interest in the matter. Moreover, that the party who ought to have instituted the court proceedings was my son and not me. Sadly, the appeal has been upheld and the merits of the case were not even heard. How can I not have direct interest in my own flesh and blood’s cause? How can a mother just watch when the money she gifted her son has been flushed down the drain and the son is not willing to directly sue his friend/business partner? Kindly advise.
Dear Anonymous
I will advise from the legal standpoint generally. For specific legal advice, consult an attorney please. According to the common law, a party initiating court proceedings must have direct, personal and substantial interest in the matter. This concept is legally known as locus standi; it is a Latin maxim. Locus means place and standi means the right to bring an action before court.
A person who commences an action or application before court has to satisfy the court that they have a legal right in the matter and that the defendant has same. In your case you have a natural interest in your son’s matter by virtue of being part of the same blood and being a caring mother. Whether motherly interest/concern in a court matter constitutes legal interest will be unearthed in the herein after paragraphs.
If there is no legitimate expectation that has been breached by the defendant resulting in exceptional injury of an economic or non-economic nature to the Plaintiff, a party cannot be held to have locus standi in the matter. Locus standi is premised on the rule that ‘everyone has the right to be heard in their own matter and no one except a legal practitioner has the right to be heard in the cause of another’. Given that the contract was between M and P; P created a legitimate expectation to M to purchase catering materials in execution of the said contract. Nonetheless, P flouted that legitimate expectation to M. Subsequently, M is legally clothed with status to sue P as he suffered monetary loss arising from breach of contract.
M consenting to you commencing court proceedings against P cannot confer locus standi on you, given that M is an adult of full legal capacity. The only person whom the law would permit to represent M in a court of law is a legal practitioner. On your part, the expectation contravened by P was just a human expectation and not necessarily legal one. The expectation was from a human yet non-legitimate standpoint in the sense that you had expected that P would live up to the terms and conditions of the contract so your son gets his return on investment. Had the business agreement been made between you and P directly, then a legitimate expectation would have been fashioned for P to ensure that he buys the catering materials in pursuit of the business deal you struck with him.
The loss you have suffered is with regard to the sum of P10,000 that you granted your son and not from the contract M and P entered into. There is however no remedy in law that accords the donor compensation from the donee in circumstances similar to yours. The moment you furnished M with money, the money legally ceased to be yours. For that reason, however M used or doled out the money in the contract with P cannot be tied to you legally. I need not downplay that if the deal had been successful, you could
The loss you have suffered is with regard to the sum of P10,000 that you granted your
son and not from the contract M and P
entered into.
have probably enjoyed the fruits of donating P10,000 to your dearest son. Nevertheless, the law sometimes conflicts with parental expectations and estimations. Without the concept of locus standi, courts would be boggled down with cases of humans who are not directly, personally and substantially affected by the order the court has to make or made.
Once the court establishes the absence of locus standi, the proceedings before it, are invalidated, which is why your matter was not heard on the merits at the higher court. In my humble view, locus standi is tantamount to courts telling every man and woman to ‘mind their own businesses’.
Additionally, I postulate that locus standi in your case can be likened to ‘Grandpa and Grandma Law’ law telling parents ‘to make monetary donations to their adult kids for joint business ventures ( the said parents are not part of) at their own peril’. It is noteworthy to mention that there are exceptions to locus standi. However, I deem it not fit to canvass them in this piece as they are irrelevant to your matter.
*Gaone Monau is an attorney and motivational speaker on the areas of confidence building, stress management, relationships, self-discovery, gender-based violence and other specific areas of the law. For bookings, motivational talks, questions or comments on the aforesaid areas WhatsApp +26776548755 or email laboutit22@gmail.com. Her Facebook page is Law & Motivation with Ms Gee.
(This is a repeat)