Can someone explain about malfeasance ?

Answer 1

The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.

The rule of law laid down is that no action lies for nonfeasance, i.e. for failure or refusal to perform the obligation, but that an action does lie for misfeasance or malfeasance, i.e. for negligently and improperly performing the obligation. The doctrine was formerly applied to certain callings carried on publicly (see R. v. Kilderby, 1669, 1 Will. Saund. 311, 312 c).

At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.

This rule is fully established in the case of failure to repair public highways; but in other cases the courts are astute to find evidence of carelessness in the discharge of public duties and on that basis to award damages to individuals who have suffered thereby.

Misfeasance is also used with reference to the conduct of directors and officers of joint-stock companies. The word malfeasance is sometimes used as equivalent to mala praxis by a medical practitioner.



Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.

An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.

The West Virginia Supreme Court summarized a number of the defintions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.

Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).

The court then went onto use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which he has no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses his powers, he is guilty of malfeasance."

Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or ommission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity--under the color of office. Finally, that that act some how interferes with the performance of official duties--though there is some debate remains about "whose official" duties.

In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent of knowledge is required.