Case Laws and Judgments on Domicile

As per Lawkidunya, Here are some notable case laws on domicile:

Supreme Court of Pakistan

1. PLD 1964 SC 673: Muhammad Hussain vs. The State, where the court held that domicile is a matter of intention and fact, and not merely a matter of law.
2. PLD 1976 SC 315: Abdul Rehman vs. The State, where the court held that a person can have only one domicile at a time.
3. PLD 1993 SC 341: Muhammad Akram vs. The State, where the court held that domicile is a question of fact and intention, and the onus of proving domicile lies on the person claiming it.

High Courts of Pakistan

1. 1995 CLC 1911 (Lahore): Muhammad Iqbal vs. The State, where the court held that a person’s domicile is determined by their intention to reside permanently in a particular place.
2. 2001 CLC 1451 (Karachi): Muhammad Yousuf vs. The State, where the court held that a person’s domicile can be changed by a clear intention to abandon their old domicile and acquire a new one.
3. 2010 CLC 1571 (Peshawar): Abdul Rehman vs. The State, where the court held that a person’s domicile is a matter of fact and intention, and cannot be determined solely by their birthplace or nationality.

Key Principles

1. Intention and Fact: Domicile is a matter of intention and fact, and not merely a matter of law.
2. Single Domicile: A person can have only one domicile at a time.
3. Onus of Proof: The onus of proving domicile lies on the person claiming it.
4. Change of Domicile: A person’s domicile can be changed by a clear intention to abandon their old domicile and acquire a new one.
These case laws and principles provide guidance on the interpretation and application of domicile laws in Pakistan.

PLD 1993 SC 341 Case Law on Domicile

A specific case law citation!
PLD 1993 SC 341 refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported in the Pakistan Law Decisions (PLD) volume of 1993, at page 341.

Here’s a brief summary of the case:
Case Name: Muhammad Akram vs. The State
Key Issue: Domicile – Determination of domicile for purposes of employment
Holding: The Supreme Court held that domicile is a question of fact and intention, and the onus of proving domicile lies on the person claiming it. The court also emphasized that a person’s domicile cannot be determined solely by their birthplace or nationality.

Relevance: This case is relevant to the determination of domicile for various purposes, including employment, education, and voting rights. It emphasizes the importance of intention and fact in determining an individual’s domicile.