FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST JESUS; THE BEGINNING AND THE END.

Contents
LAW OF TORT. ..................................................................................................................................... 2
AIMS OF TORT LAW. ...................................................................................................................... 2
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TORT.......................................................................................................... 2
TORT DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER AREAS OF LAW. ......................................................... 3
THE ELEMENT IN TORTS .............................................................................................................. 4
ASSAULT .......................................................................................................................................... 5
BATTERY .......................................................................................................................................... 7
FALSE IMPRISONMENT. ................................................................................................................ 8
OTHER ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE PHYSICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM. ...................... 9
DEFENSES TO TRESPASS TO PERSON...................................................................................... 10
INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS/CHATTEL. ............................................................................... 11
CONVERSION ................................................................................................................................. 12
DETINUE. ........................................................................................................................................ 13
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL PER SE ................................................................................................ 13
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRESPASS PER SE, DETINUE AND CONVERSION .................. 14
DEFENSES TO INTERFERENCE TO GOODS. ............................................................................ 14
REMEDIES....................................................................................................................................... 14
TRESPASS TO LAND ..................................................................................................................... 15
DEFENCES TO TRESPASS TO LAND ......................................................................................... 16
Remedies ........................................................................................................................................... 16
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE ....................................................................................................... 16
DUTY OF CARE. ............................................................................................................................. 17
BREACH OF DUTY. .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE BREACH. ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE: .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LAW OF TORT PART II ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Topic One: LIABILITY FOR ANIMALS. .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC TWO: STRICT LIABILITY: THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC THREE: OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY. .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC FOUR: NUISANCE (Latin nocentia or nocumentum) ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC SIX: VICARIOUS LIABILITY. ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC SEVEN: DEFAMATION. ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
TOPIC EIGHT: ECONOMIC TORT. .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1
 LAW OF TORT.
The word “tort” is derived from the latin word tortus which formerly meant twisted and
has come to mean “wrong”.
According to Kodilinye, in the Nigerian Law of Torts
A tort is a civil wrong involving a breach of a duty imposed by law, repressible usually
by an action for un-liquidated damages.
AIMS OF TORT LAW.
- Compensation: Tort law aims to compensate (usually by way of damages) the victim
who has suffered from the tortious act of the defendan. See Donoghue v. Stevenson.

- Deterrence: Tort law seeks to deter people from committing wrongs and taking
unnecessary risks because they would compensate anybody that suffers from their
wrongful act.

- Tort law seeks to apportion blame and losses.

- Tort aims to protect the individual’s interest in property.
- Tort law aims to protect individual’s privacy, safety and security. Protecting against
unlawful assault, battery and false imprisonment.
- Tort law aims to protect a person’s reputation an integrity through the instrumentality
of “defamation” and “malicious prosecution”.
In summary, tort law seeks to promote the growth and advancement of the society.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TORT

The embryonic form of tort law could be seen in the practice of the 13 th century king’s
common-law courts. In those days, actions had to be commenced by the issue of a “royal
“writ of trespass1” or a “writ of trespass on the case2”. If a claimant’s petition could not
fall into either of these writs, then he may be left without a remedy. This hardship was
remedied by the The Common Law Procedure Act 1852 which abolished the forms
of actions and just required the plaintiff to just show that a recognized tort has been
committed against him. Tort law grew with cases and statutes.
Nigeria received the English common-law and doctrines of Equity along with the
Statutes of General Application that were in force as at 1st January 1900. These
receptions invariably includes the English Law of Tort.

1
This writ applied to forcible, direct and immediate threats.
2
This writ would lie for indirect non-forcible and consequential actions.
2
TORT DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER AREAS OF LAW.
The law of tort usually complements other areas of law. It is however a distinct area on
its own. For the purpose of clarity, I shall use a tabular representation. PLEASE DO
NOT USE TABLES IN THE EXAMINATION.

TORT AND CRIME.

Similarities:
Both aim to control the actions of others. Moreover, certain areas of tort like trespass
overlaps with criminal law3.
TORT CRIMINAL LAW.
A purely civil wrong committed by a An offence against the state.
plaintiff against a defendant.
It is under the Private and Property Law. A Public Law Subject.
Seeks to compensate the injured party for Seeks to punish the offender for
harm caused as a result of the defendant’s disobeying the law.
wrongdoing.
Draws majority of its principles and rules Draws most of its principles from
from case law. Though supplemented by statutes/laws. In Nigeria, we have the
some statutes. Criminal Code and Penal Code for the
Southern and Northern parts of Nigeria
respectively.
To succeed in an action, the balance of The prosecutor has to prove beyond
proof need only weigh in the plaintiffs reasonable doubt that the accused is
favor. guilty, to succeed in a criminal case.
Damages awarded goes to the plaintiff. Fines imposed usually goes to the state.

Initially, the rule was: where a case has a tortious and felonious element 4, the
prosecution for the felony must have been concluded before a suit in respect of the tort
can be instituted-Smith v. Selwyn. This is no longer the stance as both the criminal and
tort cases can now run concurrently. See Tika Tore Press Ltd v. Umar, Section 46 of
the 1999 constitution.

TORT AND CONTRACT.

Although there exists some similarities between tort and contract. For example, a victim
of fraudulent misrepresentation in a contract may sue for the tort of deceit.
TORT CONTRACT.
The duties of the parties are fixed by law. The terms of most contracts are usually

3
See for example See section 351 of the Criminal Code.
4
That is where a case has liability bordering on both crime and tort.
3
 fixed by the parties.
Seeks to compensate for a wrong. Seeks to enforce agreements i.e.
obligations, between parties.
There is no need for privity here. The To be entitled to sue in contract, the
parties do not need to have a prior claimant is usually required to prove
relationship/agreement-Donoghue V privity5.
Stephenson.

TORTS AND TRUSTS

TORT TRUSTS
Is a common-law concept Is an equitable concept.
A claim for damages in tort is un- A claim for breach of trusts is liquidated.
liquidated6. It is known and quite certain.

The phrase; damnum sine injuria… injuria sine damno means “damage without legal
injury and legal injury without damage”.
This phrase as used in tort mandates that the claimant must show that he has suffered
both a legal injury and damage7- Bello v. A.G Oyo State. See also Roy v. Prior.
THE ELEMENT IN TORTS
1. INTENTION: a deliberate behavior. The desire to produce a known consequence8.
2. NEGLIGENCE: Ordinarily means carelessness. At law it has a different meaning. It
involves;
- A duty of care imposed by law.
- Breach of that duty by the tortfeasor.
- The breach resulting in damage to the plaintiff. (these shall be discussed in detail later).
3. STRICT LIABILITY: is liability imposed by the law devoid of intention. It does not
need to be proved that the defendant intended to commit the tort… it is sufficient if he
only breaches the duty owed.
4. MOTIVE: The reason behind a person’s act. In tort, motive is generally irrelevant-
Bradford Corporation v. Pickles.
5. MALICE: there are a few torts in which malice is relevant for example, defamation,
nuisance, malicious prosecution and so on. Malice may also be relevant in the

5
Persons suing on the contract are usually required to be parties to the agreement.
6
Meaning that discretion, analysis and calculation would be utilized in deciding the amount to be
paid as damages.
7
The exception to this rule is trespass per se which we shall learn subsequently. There is no need
to prove injury in trespass per se. e.g. trespass to land.
8
A person in law is generally presumed to intend that which is a natural consequence of what he
does-Hyam V DPP.
4
 calculation of damages9.
Torts may be classified into
1. Trespass to person: Includes; assault, battery, false imprisonment.
2. Trespass to chattel: Includes trespass to land, chattels, conversion, detinue,
nuisance, negligence.
3. Interest in reputation - defamation
4. Economic Tort – deceit, passing off, and so on.
5. Interference with judicial process - tort of malicious prosecution.
6. Interference with family relations - the tort of enticement and harboring.

TRESPASS TO PERSON/ INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE

PERSON.
The torts under this classification includes:
1. Assault.
2. Battery.
3. False imprisonment.
4. Other acts that can cause physical or mental injury. Harassment.

Note that under the tort of trespass to person, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant
“intentionally” committed the tort… Intention must be proved10.
ASSAULT
An assault means intentionally putting a person in fear of an imminent battery. It is
an Attempt or offer to beat another without touching him 11-Blackstone’s Dictionary
on Private Wrongs. For there to be an assault, the following elements must be proved:
- The defendant made a threat.
- Which puts the plaintiff in fear of imminent danger (objective test is applied).
- The defendant/tortfeasor has the ability to (immediately) carry out the threat12.
Note the following key-points and principles on assault:

9
For example, in Hollywood Silver Fox farm v. Emmett, the plaintiffs reared silver foxes for their
fur. Silver foxes are very timid and can miscarry or devour their babies if threatened or scared. The
defendant was against the farm so he fired a gun with the intention to scare the foxes and impede
breeding. It was held that the defendant was liable for nuisance because he carried his act with
malice (shooting the gun to scare the silver foxes).
10
In Letang v. Cooper the plaintiff was negligently run over by the defendant’s car. She brought
her claim under trespass to person. The court held that since the act was not intentional, it cannot
succeed under trespass to person. She would have succeeded if she brought her claim under
negligence. In Gibbon v. Pepper, the court noted that if A carries B’s hand and uses it to slap C,
A (rather than B) would be liable because ‘B’ had no intention.
11
E.g. A points a gun at B. or A raises his hand and gestures as if to slap B.
12
In Thomas v. National Union of Mineworkers. The plaintiff was in a vehicle that was to
convey him to work. As the vehicle drove by, the striking workers made angry gestures at those
inside the bus. The court held that those inside the bus were well protected and there was no
ability to immediately carry out the threat so there was no assault.
5
:: There is no requirement for physical harm… mere apprehension would suffice.
In Stephens V. Meyers, the defendant approached the claimant with clenched fists but
he was prevented by someone (the church warden) staying next to the chairman. The
court held that he assaulted the plaintiff notwithstanding that there was no actual
physical harm done.
:: Assault usually precedes battery.
:: “Fear” is the determinant word as such. If the plaintiff is not afraid, there can be no
assault.-R v. Barret. Conversely, in R v. St George, the defendant pointed an unloaded
gun at the plaintiff. Held: Assault… because the plaintiff was still put in fear.
:: Words alone (even threats over the phone) may amount to assault provided there
is the ability to immediately execute and it puts the victim in fear of imminent danger.
In R v. Burstow, the defendant had a brief relationship with a woman She ended the
relationship and he could not accept her decision and embarked on a campaign of
harassment against her over a period of 8 months. He made silent telephone calls,
abusive telephone calls, he appeared at her house, took photos of her and distributed
offensive cards to her neighbours and hate mail. As a result she suffered a severe
depressive illness. Held: assault and harassment.
:: Silence can also amount to an assault. In R v. Ireland, the plaintiff made silent
phone calls to different women. Held: assault.13
:: Acts which could otherwise amount to assault can be negated with words. In
Tuberville V. Savage, Savage had made some insulting comments to Tuberville. In
response, Tuberville grabbed the handle of his sword and stated, "If it were not for
assize14 time, I would not have taken such language from you." Savage responded with
force, causing Tuberville to lose his eye. Tuberville brought an action for assault,
battery, and wounding, to which Savage pleaded provocation, to-wit Tuberville’s
statement. The court held that words can negate unlawful actions15.
:: Otherwise innocent acts can be negated with words: we have noted that words can
make “assaultable” actions harmless. Conversely, harmless and normal acts can be
negated with words. In Read V. Coker, Read and some of his men rolled up their

13
Look at movie scenarios where Mr A is tied up to a chair for interrogation and the interrogator
(Mr B) brings out his torture tool box filled with all kinds of instruments. Mr A asks: “what are
you gonna do to me”. But Mr B keeps quiet and keeps unpacking and setting up the various
torture instruments.
14
“Assizes” meant travelling courts. So what the claimant was saying was that he would not risk
using the sword on the defendant because the judge was in town
15
But in R v. Light, a husband raised a sword over the head of the wife and said, “were it not for
the bloody policemen outside, I would split your head open”. But the court held that the husband
was guilty of assault. This shows that it depends on the facts of each case… In Light’s case, the
circumstances show that the wife would still have been afraid. Look at another example where
Mr A Points a gun at Mr B and says; chai, you are lucky… if this gun was loaded I would have
shot you. These words have negated the assault because Mr A’s statement should put Mr B’s
mind at rest.
6
sleeves and said that they were going to break Coker’s neck if he did not leave the
premises. Held: the oral threat made the circumstance (rolling up their sleeves 16) amount
to an assault.
:: The court shall apply the Objective view rather than subjective view: it involves
asking the question; “would a reasonable man in the shoes of the defendant be afraid?”
In Hurst v. Picture Theatres ltd, the defendant had forcibly ejected the claimant form
the theatre, the plaintiff was not afraid however, the defendants were still held liable for
assault and false imprisonment… because a normal person in the shoes of the defendant
would have felt threatened. In Brady v. Schatzel, the defendant pointed a gun at the
plaintiff. It was established that the plaintiff was not afraid and the plaintiff even said
that he was not afraid (while the gun was being pointed at him). Held: Assault. Because
a reasonable man would have been afraid if a gun was being pointed at him.

BATTERY
This tort aims at protecting the bodily integrity of the plaintiff and his right to be left
alone.
Battery is the intentional17 application of force to another without his consent18. For
example, slapping someone, groping a person, e.t.c.
Blackstone’s dictionary defines battery as; The least touching of another’s person
willfully.
Note the following principles:
:: The touch need not be hostile, so long as it is unconsented to, it can amount to battery-
RE F, Per Lord Goff.
:: Willful and unconsented projection of heat, smell, noise… on the plaintiff making
him uncomfortable can constitute a battery-Lawal v. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dele Giwa v. IGP, Amakiri v. Iwowari, Akintola v. Adegbenro, Onwo v. Oko.
:: The Contact need not be Direct. It can be Direct (e.g. slapping someone) or
Indirect (e.g. stoning someone). On indirect contact, see DPP v. K where a 15 year old
put acid in a hand dryer and a student who wanted to use the dryer got the acid blown
on his face. The court held that the defendant was guilty of battery.
:: Some persons (like police officers) may be engaged in battery and assault during the
course of their duty but they should not act outside the scope of the law/their duty-
Collins V. Wilcock, Donnelly v. Jackman.
:: Although the touch needs to be unconsented, once the touch is hostile, battery
might be construed despite the plea of consent-Wilson V. Pringle. In this case, two
schoolboys were playing when one pushed the other which resulted in his falling and

16
Rolling up one’s sleeve is normally a harmless action.
17
Unintentional application of force should come under negligence. See Letang v. Cooper,
Fowler v. Lanning, Gibbons v. Pepper.
18
Please read your books. You would see better authorities that defined most of these terms.
7
injuring himself. The court held that if the touch is hostile, there is battery irrespective
of the intention. See also Williams v. Humphrey19 Fagan v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner. See however lord Goff in Re F.
:: The least touching could also constitute battery: Cole v. Turner, Scott v. shepherd.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
- Intentional unlawful and unjustifiable detention/restraint of a person (the plaintiff).
- Against his will
- From all directions thus making it impossible or unreasonable to escape.
In Adeyemo v. Prince Akintola; Omage J.C.A defined false imprisonment as: “The
total restraint of a man’s liberty whether it be in an open field or in a cage”.
See also, Udeagha v. Nwogwugwu. Amakiri v. Iwowari, Onwo v. Oko. Dele Giwa v.
IGP.
False imprisonment is actionable per se. if the claimant has an option to refuse being
falsely imprisoned, there is no false imprisonment. Clarke v. Davis. Furthermore, the
plaintiff should explore reasonable means of escape- Davis and Alcott V. Boozer…
except it can be shown that the option provided is actually not an option 20.
As noted by Edward Coke: Every restraint of the liberty of a man is imprisonment
although it be not within the walls of any common prison.
In Sunbolf V. Alford, the boss of a restaurant locked up the customers who refused to
pay. It was held to be false imprisonment.
Coleridge J. In Bird V. Jones**; noted; “A prison must have a boundary tangible or
not, and that boundary, the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing… it
includes the notion of restraint, within some limited space against ones will”.
Note the following principles
:: Restraint should be full rather than partial.
In the illustrative case of Bird v. Jones, Part of the Hammersmith Bridge had been
closed to watch a boat race. Bird (the Plaintiff) wanted to enter but he was prevented by
Jones (Defendant) and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. Bird
was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted
to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go and said he could go back
and take the alternative route. Bird sued Jones for false imprisonment. It was held that
imprisonment needs to be a total restraint and this tort does not protect partial restraint.
Thus bird was not successful in his claim.
I am very fond of Lord Darman’s dissenting view in this judgment. He expressed that

19
A movie example would be A and B are friends, they meet themselves on the road and greet by
pushing in a friendly manner. A pushes B and B pushes A back. A sees a truck approaching then
forcefully pushes B to the road to collide with the truck. This is battery notwithstanding that both
consented to the pushing.
20
E.g. a person is locked in a room but there is an escape which is a big window. The only
problem is that the room is on the 7th floor of the building.
8
 the freedom of one to do what he has the right to do should be our focus rather than
providing alternative routes. However, if this view is adopted by the courts, their
floodgates may be open.
:: Detention without authority constitutes false imprisonment.
:: If the restraint or detention was done carelessly, the plaintiff should sue in negligence.
For example, mistakenly locking someone in a room-MacPherson v. Brown.
:: The plaintiff need not be aware/know that he is being falsely imprisoned.
Initially, it was necessary that the person being imprisoned should know that he is being
falsely imprisoned. See for example Herring v. Boyle where a school boy was put in a
place and not allowed to go home because he had not paid his school fees. It was held
that since he was unaware that he was falsely imprisoned for not paying school fees,
there was no false imprisonment. However, the new position can be seen in the case of
Meering v. Graham-White Aviation co Limited. In this case, the claimant, an employee
of the defendants was suspected of stealing paint, he was asked to go to the company’s
office. When he entered the room and unknown to him, two guards stayed outside while
he was questioned. The defendants contended that as far as the claimant knew, he was
free to leave at any time because he was not aware that he was falsely imprisoned. The
court held that knowledge that one is being imprisoned is irrelevant. This decision was
affirmed in Murray v. Ministry of Defense though the court pointed out that in such an
instance, the claimant would be entitled to nominal damages21 when no harm
whatsoever has been caused to him.
:: Consent vitiates claim for false imprisonment-Herd V. Weardale Steel, Coal and
Coke co where a minor/underage descended into a mine to work for his employers, his
shift was to end by 4 pm. Before the end of his shift, he disobeyed an order and he
requested to be taken to the surface with a lift. He was denied the lift until the time for
his shift. He sued for false imprisonment, the court refused to hold this on the ground
of volenti non fit injuria.
There is no false imprisonment where you are given the option of leaving. Clarke
v. Davies.

OTHER ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE PHYSICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM.

This is just like the residue of trespass to person. Where your claims cannot fall under
assault, battery or false imprisonment but the act committed against you amounts to a
wrongful interference with your personal safety and it is intended to cause harm.
Two elements should be proved here,
- That the defendant intentionally did an act or made a statement.
- Which causes the plaintiff to suffer a physical or mental harm22.

21
Usually low in amount being just damages following a declaration of right.
22
This harm must be known to psychology and/or medicine.
9
 In Wilkinson v. Downton, the defendant jokingly told the plaintiff that her husband
was involved in a fatal accident and was seriously injured. This led to a violent nervous
shock to the woman and she subsequently fell ill. It was held that since the plaintiff
made the statement with the intention that the woman should believe it, and there was
no justification for doing such, it constituted a good cause of action.
In Wainwright v. Home Office, the subjection of the plaintiff and her son to a strip
search at the prison caused Mrs. Wainwright’s depression to be worse and made her son
to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. It was held that there was damage within
the definition of Wilkinson v. Downton. Although the claim failed for other reasons.
Another major development here can be seen in the enactment of the UK
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which was enacted to protect from
harassment23. To harass means to persistently24 annoy or bother somebody.
Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides that; A person must
not pursue a conduct which amounts to harassment of another or which he knows or
ought to know amounts to harassment25. The reasonable man’s standard is applied.
Section 3 of the act allows a civil action to be brought to remedy acts amounting to
harassment.
In Majrowsky v. Guys and St. Thomas’ NHS Trusts, Majrowsky an employee sued the
Trust for vicarious liability of the Mrs. Freeman his manager in his workplace claiming
that she bullied and maltreated him. He said she harassed him most likely because he is
gay. She refused to talk to him and gave him the most difficult tasks. Court found
harassment and held that an employer can be vicariously liable for harassment to their
employees from bosses.
In Singh v. Bhakar, the claimant, (a spouse of an arranged marriage) alleged that her
mother in law maltreated her, treated her like a slave, made her do all the chores till her
hands became infected. She alleged that all contacts with her family was restricted and
she was forced to wear an amulet from another religion. She left the marriage and sued
for harassment. She was successful.
In Khorasandijan V Bush, After the breakup, the defendant’s ex started harassing her
through frequent phone calls, aggressive behaviour and scratching her car. Harassment
was found and an injunction was granted.
DEFENSES TO TRESPASS TO PERSON
1. Self-defense or defense of property: Note that the defense/reply should be

23
Obviously.
 24
Harassment must be a persistent (two occasions would suffice) behavior that torments a
person-Wong v. Parkside Health NHS Trust 2003 3 all er 932.
25
Although certain derogations are allowed. E.g. Section 1(3) provides an exception where the
act was done to prevent the commission of a crime.
10
 proportionate-Lane v. Holloway26.
2. Lawful Authority: e.g. the police may confine a suspect. A captain of a ship may have
likewise authority and restrain entry or exit if it is necessary for the safety of the ship.
3. Parental Authority: Section 295 of the Criminal code. A parent or guardian may
reasonably punish or confine the child or ward. A school master may reasonably
discipline a child.
3. Consent. Volenti non fit injuria. Consent may be implied in certain situations like day
to day hustles, a sportsman cannot sue for trespass to person-Wright v. Mclean except
the act was a foul against the rules of the game done with the intention to cause harm.
Hearde v. Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co. R v. Billinghurst27, R v. Williams,
Wright v. Maclean, Leidh v. Bladstone28. Wilson v. Pringles.Although consent may be
vitiated in some instances. In R v. Williams, the defendant told the girl that having sex
with him would improve her voice. It was held that the consent of the naïve girl was no
consent.
4. Lawful Arrest.
5. Necessity: In F v. West Beckshire Health Authority.
6. Exturpi causa non Oritur action29.
INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS/CHATTEL.
We have discussed trespass to person. We now move on to trespass to goods.
Chattel is any property (other than land or other immovable property) which is
capable of being owned. The law aims to protect the right to enjoy property and
prevent unjustified interference with goods. They are actionable per se- See Davis v.
Lagos city Council.
Types of interference with goods.
1. Conversion.
2. Detinue.
3. Trespass to chattel per se

26
1968 1qb 379 The defendant replied the hit from the claimant with a savage blow on the
claimant’s eye that landed him in hospital for surgery. When the claimant sued for damages, he
was granted. It was held that the blow used in defending was not proportionate.
27
During a rugby match and in an off the ball incident, B punched G on his face thus fracturing his
jaw. B was charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm. The defence argued that rugby is a game
of force and the player is taken to have impliedly consented to any form of bodily harm. The court
held that a line needs to be drawn between force used in the course of play and that used outside
play. Thus B was found liable.
28
1909 26 tlr139
29
Which simply means; a legal cause cannot arise from an illegal action. E.g. where A and B go
to rob a bank and A escapes with the bag of money and doesn’t communicate with B. If B
persistently calls A, scratches his car and finally sues for the money to be shared, A can use the
defence of exturpi to vitiate B’s claim.
11
 CONVERSION
The wilful, unlawful and unjustified interference with the chattel of another
thus depriving the plaintiff of his right to use, possess and enjoy his property.
In criminal law, it is called theft.
May take many forms or means like taking, (wilful) wrongful delivery, transfer,
disposal, destruction, and so on. See North Central Wagon and Finance Company
Limited v. Graham where a man got a vehicle on hire purchase and sold it in
contravention of the hire purchase agreement, the court held that the act amounted to
conversion. See also Consolidated Company Ltd v. Curtis and Sons, Hollins V. fowler.
A question may arise where the item/goods/property is lost but found. The case of
Parker V. British Airways Board laid down some rules in this regard. In this case;
A passenger handed over a lost gold bracelet which he found lying around on the
lounge, to the British Airways Board on the condition that it be returned to him if the
real owner was not found. Later, the defendants sold the unclaimed bracelet for 850
pounds. Parker sued them challenging their claim to the bracelet. It was held that parker
had a better title to the goods than the defendants. The court also held that, despite the
fact that the bracelet was found on the property of the defendants, it was found in public
because there was much activity by passengers in that area.
The finders rule was thus laid down by the court. The principles include;
- No right is acquired unless the item in question is lost/abandoned. Once found, the
finder has right over everyone else but the real owner. In Armory v. Delamirie, a
chimney sweeps boy found a jewel and gave it to a jeweler for valuation. The jeweler
refused to return the jewelry to him. The court held that a finder of a property has right
over everyone but the true owner over the property.
- An employee that finds a lost item in the course of his employment, does so on behalf
of his employer (unless there is an agreement to the contrary).
- An occupier of a land or a building where the lost property was attached, has superior
right over those of the finder. But does not have a better right over true owner30. See
South Staffordshire Water Company v. Sharman.
- The court further advocated that; the finder should take reasonable steps to locate the
owner.
In Chukwuka v. CFAO Motors ltd; The plaintiff sent his car to the defendant motor
company for repairs. He failed to claim the car after 9 months. The defendants then sold
it to a third party. It was held that they were liable for conversion.
See Erivo v. Obi, Ashby v. Tolhurst.

30
To be an occupier, one must have been residing or manifested an intention to have control over
the land.
12
 DETINUE.
- The unlawful detention of chattel of another person who has a right of immediate
possession to it.
- Refusal to return it upon demand by the owner who is in immediate possession of the
property.
The Interference Of Goods Act UK now merges detinue with conversion. In Nigeria,
it still exists as a separate tort.
In a detinue action therefore, the plaintiff is suing for specific return of his goods (or
the value of his goods if it has been disposed/destroyed already). See Ogiugo and Sons
ltd v. Cop, Davies V. Lagos City Council, Koshile V. Folarin, In this case, the
defendant who sold the motor vehicle to the plaintiff on credit seized and refused to
return when the plaintiff had not fully paid. The Supreme Court held that there was
detinue. The Supreme Court emphasized that a demand is very important and the
defendant must have refused to return the property.
In WAEC v. Karoye, the plaintiff sat for an exam conducted by the defendant council.
The council refused to release his certificate. The claim for detinue was upheld by the
Supreme Court. See Shuwa V. Chad Basin Development Authority. Also Cop v.
Oguntayo where the appellants sued the defendants for detaining his Mitsubishi vehicle
and refusal to return it after a demand. The case of Stitch v. AG Federation where the
plaintiff imported a car from overseas. It was impounded by the board of customs and
excise at the port. The custom then sold it to the fourth defendant. The plaintiff sued the
defendant to return his car. It was held that there was detinue. The court awarded the
monetary value of the car.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONVERSION AND DETINUE.
- The refusal to surrender the chattel after demand, is the essence of detinue. In
conversion, there need not be demand.
See Agbai v. Okagbue and the cases above.
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL PER SE
Under this one, all that needs to be shown is that the defendant willfully31 interfered
with the chattel in possession32 of the plaintiff33. The defendant need not take the goods

31
National Coal Board V. Evens Co. Trespass to chattel is not a strict liability intention or
negligence should be proved. An accident cannot arise to trespass to chattel.
Erivo V. Obi the defendant respondent closed the door of the appellants car and the side
windscreen got broken As inevitable accident was a defense.
32
Possession is needed at the time of the trespass. Except;
- A trustee may sue one that trespasses with the goods of the beneficiary.
- An executor and administrator may sue for trespass to chattel of the deceased before he is granted
probate or letter of administration.
- The owner of a franchise can claim against anyone who seizes the goods before he can take them.
Finders, caretakers, Bailee, custodians, assignees, ledgers, and so on can also sue.
33
Please do not forget that chattels are moveable. In the exam don’t make a mistake.
13
 away. See Davies v. Lagos City Council. Ogiugo and Sons v. Cop, **Fouldes V.
Willoughby. In Gwk V. Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd34. Slater V. Swann35.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRESPASS PER SE, DETINUE AND CONVERSION

- In conversion and detinue there must be taking away. But mere interference with goods
would suffice in trespass per se-Fouldes v. Wiloughby;
- Deprivation must be present in conversion but it is not necessary in trespass per se
- Detinue mandates that a demand must have been made by the plaintiff. Others do not
require demand to be made.
DEFENSES TO INTERFERENCE TO GOODS.
The defenses are not watertight as they sometimes spill over to the next.
1. Jus tertii: the defendant can plead and establish that he is acting on behalf of a disclosed
person with a better title than that of the plaintiff.
The identity of the person with a better title must be disclosed, *his better right or right
to ownership must be established too- COP v. Oguntayo.
2. The defendant can show that he has a better title than the plaintiff.
3. Defendant can show that he is enforcing a court order or acting under a court process.
4. Limitation of time: for example, that the case is statute barred cases.
5. Subsisting lien.
6. Subsisting bailment.
7. Inevitable accident: although it would not avail someone under Detinue.
8. Innocent delivery.
9. Honest conversion
10. Temporary retention especially in the case of lost and found items.
11. Self defence.

REMEDIES.
1. A claim for replacement or the current market price especially where goods have been
destroyed.
2. Claim for a return or an order of replevin. Especially in the case of Detinue or
conversion.
3. Damages. General or special.
4. Order for delivery.
5. Repair of the damaged goods.

34
Removing a tyre from the plaintiff’s car and replacing it with another tyre was held to be
trespass.
35
The court held that beating of the plaintiff’s animal amounted to trespass to chattel.
14
Who may sue?
Owners, bailees see the winkfield case, finders, trustees,

TRESPASS TO LAND
Implies the unlawful interference with the land in possession of the plaintiff. Such
interference must be direct and physical. Trespass to land is actionable per se i.e. there
is no need for physical injury/damage-SPDC Ltd v. Chief Ekwet.
Trespass to land in Nigeria usually arises as part of a claim to land and rarely tort.
Blackstone’s Commentaries of the Laws of England says; “Land …signifies
everything that may be holden provided it be of a permanent nature”.
Section 3 of the Interpretation Act defines land to include the land itself and
everything attached to the Earth.
Edward Coke defines land as; “Any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever… An indefinite
extend upwards as well as downwards… no man may erect any building to overhang
another’s land”.
These definitions may have some derogations in recent times with concepts like
nuisance, strict liability, and so on limiting the coverage area of land. E.g. The Civil
Aviation Act 1982 provides that; “No civilian plane shall be liable for trespass for
flying over the claimant’s house at a reasonable distance. It shall only be liable for
objects that fall from or if the plane descends too low so as to cause damage to the
claimant’s property”. See also Arthur v. Anker.
:: Trespass to land is rooted in immediate and exclusive possession of land-Olagunju
v. Yahaya, as such, a landlord can be liable for trespassing when the tenant is in
immediate possession of the land. However, a clause can be imputed into the tenancy
agreement to authorise the landlord to enter the property. Universal Vulcanising v.
Ijesha Trading Co- only a person in immediate possession can sue for trespass. The
owner not in immediate possession cannot. Amakor v. Obiefuna.
:: Trespass may be committed by directly and unlawfully - entering the land, - projecting
and allowing things to hang over the land, placing things on the land (unconsented
parking in someone’s land), remaining on the land, abusing right of entry, continuing
trespass, trespass ab initio36 and so on. See Entick v. Carrington

36
Trespass ab initio: where a person’s entry is permitted by statute or common-law and the person
does a wrongful act while there, that act makes the original entry unlawful-Entick v. Carrington.
See for example the Six Carpenters Case

15
 See Chic Fashions v. Jones
:: Continuing trespass occurs where the act of trespass is in a somewhat permanent
nature.
DEFENCES TO TRESPASS TO LAND
- Necessity. See Esso Petroleum Co. v. Southport Corporation.
- Lawful authority, Statutory or common-law right of entry.
- Justertii. (Where a person acts on the authority of a third party that has a better title).
Remedies
The remedies available include;
- Damages
- Injunction
- A declarative judgment.
- Claim for a recovery of land.
- Distress damage feasant (the claimant can keep the object placed on land by the tort-
feasor until he has paid for the damages caused).
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is a dynamic tort stemming from the period of industrial revolution. The
growth of commercial activities in Nigeria necessitated its growth. The decision in
Donoghue v. Stevenson was the first major attempt at streamlining the tort of
negligence. Over the years the courts have been faced with the task of streamlining and
panel-beating the principles formulated in Donoghue V Stephenson leaving each case
to be a question of both law and fact.
In a layman’s language, negligence ordinarily means carelessness or irresponsibility.
Negligence may be seen to mean the doing or failing to do what a reasonable man in
one’s position would not do or omit respectively.
In law, the tort of negligence is more sophisticated, it consists of three elements namely;
- A duty of care imposed by law on the defendant
- A breach of the duty by the defendant
- Damage resulting from the breach

In this case, six carpenters went into an inn, they ordered bread and wine and paid for it. They later
ordered for more wine and refused to pay. It was held that refusal could retrospectively invalidate
the earlier right they had to enter. They were however not held liable because, they had only
committed an omission rather than an act.

Although, in my opinion, this decision seems ambiguous, the defendants were under a duty to act
(pay for services rendered) The court interpreted the law on the face of it without discerning the
purpose.
16
 See UTB v. Ozoemena, Ngilari v. Mothercat.
DUTY OF CARE.
In construing a duty of care we ask ourselves;
- Is there a recognisable duty owed to the plaintiff?
- From the facts of the case, does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?
In answering the above questions, we are to ask ourselves;
- Is there sufficient proximity between the defendant and the claimant?
- Would it be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty? Anns v. Merton London
Borough

FULL NOTE ON WWW.ISOCHUKWU.COM

LAW OF TORT PART I AND II

TABLE OF CONTENT.
AIMS OF TORT LAW.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TORT
TORT DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER AREAS OF LAW.
THE ELEMENT IN TORTS
THE TORT OF ASSAULT
THE TORT OF BATTERY
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
OTHER ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE PHYSICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC HARM.
DEFENCES TO TORTS OF TRESPASS TO PERSON (I.E. ASSAULT, BATTERY,
FALSE IMPRISONMENT, ETC).
THE TORT OF CONVERSION.
TORT OF DETINUE.
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL PER SE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRESPASS PER SE, DETINUE AND CONVERSION.
DEFENSES AND REMEDIES TO THE TORT OF INTERFERENCE TO GOODS
(WHICH INCLUDE; CONVERSION, DETINUE, TRESPASS PER SE).

17
TRESPASS TO LAND
DEFENCES AND REMEDIES TO TRESPASS TO LAND
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE (DUTY OF CARE, BREACH OF DUTY, DAMAGES
CAUSED BY THE BREACH. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE).

LAW OF TORT PART II.

TOPIC ONE: LIABILITY FOR ANIMALS.
TOPIC TWO: STRICT LIABILITY: THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER.
TOPIC THREE: OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
TOPIC FOUR: NUISANCE.
TOPIC FIVE: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
TOPIC SIX: VICARIOUS LIABILITY.
TOPIC SEVEN: TORT OF DEFAMATION.
TOPIC EIGHT: ECONOMIC TORT. (I.E. INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD,
CONSPIRACY, INTIMIDATION, PASSING OFF, DECEIT, ETC.).

FULL NOTE ON WWW.ISOCHUKWU.COM

18