LEGAL PRINCIPLE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – Application to Vesting Provisions
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Since section 7(1) has only transferred to the defendant Ekiti State, the property/and chattels etc, as provided in that section, and has not mentioned the plaintiff Ondo State, it is clear and without any doubt that Ondo State is excluded from that arrangement. The two related principles mean firstly that 'to state a thing expressly ends the possibility that something inconsistent with it is implied.' Secondly 'to express one thing is impliedly to exclude another' which is an aspect of the latter.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, in A.G., Ondo State v. A.G., Ekiti State (2001) NLC-1362000(SC) at p. 42; Paras A–D.
"Since section 7(1) has only transferred to the defendant Ekiti State, the property/and chattels etc, as provided in that section, and has not mentioned the plaintiff Ondo State, it is clear and without any doubt that Ondo State is excluded from that arrangement. The two related principles mean firstly that 'to state a thing expressly ends the possibility that something inconsistent with it is implied.' Secondly 'to express one thing is impliedly to exclude another' which is an aspect of the latter."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (express mention of one thing excludes others) applies to vesting provisions. If section 7(1) expressly transfers property only to Ekiti State, Ondo State is impliedly excluded from that arrangement. The express mention of one party ends the possibility of implying inclusion of another. The court cannot add what the legislature omitted. The principle prevents courts from extending statutory provisions beyond their clear scope. If the legislature intended to include Ondo State, it would have said so. The omission is deliberate. The maxim applies where specific enumeration implies the exclusion of non-enumerated items or parties.