NAME: ALICHE BLOSSOM CHIAMAKA

MATRICNUMBER:18/SMS13/002.
COURSE TITLE: LAW OF TORTS.
ASSIGNMENT: TORTS OF TRESPASS TO
CHATTEL
WHAT IS TORT OF TRESPASS TO CHATTEL?

The word "chattel" means any article, goods, or personal property, other than land and
immoveable property. Examples of chattel include cars, furniture, animal, vessel,
aircraft, sea craft, and anything which is moveable and capable of being owned. The
tort of trespass to chattel is the aspect of tort which protects the rights of ownership or
possession of a chattel from all wrongful interferences and/or unlawful interferences.
In Erivo v Obi (1993) 9 NWLR pt 316, p. 60 CA, the defendant respondent closed the
door of the plaintiff appellant's car and the side windscreen got broken. The appellant
sued inter alia for damage to the windscreen and the loss he incurred in hiring another
car to attend to his business. The defendant respondent alternatively pleaded inevitable
accident. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant respondent was not
liable. He did not use excessive force but only normal force in closing the door of the
car. He did not break the windscreen intentionally or negligently. It was an inevitable
accident which the exercise of reasonable care and the normal force used by the
respondent could not avert. In this case, the Court of Appeal restated the position of the
law that, trespass to chattel is actionable per se, that is, without proof of actual damage.
Any unauthorized touching or moving of a chattel is actionable at the suit of the
possessor of a chattel, even though no harm has been done to the chattel.

ELEMENTS OF TORT OF TRESPASS TO CHATTEL:

To succeed, the plaintiff must establish that the act of trespass was:

1. Intentional; or

2. . Negligent. National Coal Board v Evans & Co. (1951) 2 KB 861 and Gaylor

As a general rule, proving intention or negligence is very important as trespass to chattel

is not a strict liability tort. However, accident, intentional or negligent trespass do not
automatically give rise to liability per se, as an appropriate defence, may be pleaded to
avoid liability.
EXAMPLES OF PERSONS QUALIFIED TO SUE FOR TRESPASS TO CHATTEL
Anyone who has possession of a chattel may sue any other person who meddles with
the chattel because the main aim of the tort of trespass is to protect possession, or the
right to immediate possession. In other words, anyone who has possession or right to
immediate possession can sue. Accordingly, some persons who do not have legal right
are deemed by law to have possession, so that they will be able to protect chattels left
under their care. For instance, an employee to whom an employer has given custody of
goods, Therefore, the persons who may sue for trespass to chattel, provided they have
possession at the material time of the interference include:
1. Owners
2. Bailees
3. Lenders
4. Assignees
5. Trustees
6. Finders
7. Custodians
8. Caretakers
9. Adverse possessors, because mere possession gives a right to sue to retain
possession
10. Executors
11. Administrators of estates; etc.
In National Coal Board v Evans & Co. (supra), the defendant contractors were
employed by a county council to work on land owned by the defendant council. A trench
had to be dug, which the defendants employed a sub-contractor to do. An electric cable
passed under the land, but neither the council, nor Evan & Co. who were head
contractors, nor the sub-contractors knew this, and the cable was not marked on any
available map. During excavation, a mechanical digger damaged the cable and water
seeped into it causing an explosion, and thereby cutting off electricity supply to the
plaintiff’s coal mine. The plaintiff sued claiming damages for trespass to the electricity
cable. The court
held that in the absence of establishing negligence on the part of the defendant
contractors, there was no fault and there was no trespass by the defendants. The damage
was an inevitable accident.

THE DEFENCES AND REMEDIES

OF TRESPASS TO CHATTEL.
DEFENCES:
In an action for trespass to chattel, the defences a defendant may plead include:
1. Inevitable accident
2. Jus tertii, that is, the title, or better right of a third party, provided that he has the
authority of such third party.
3. Honest conversion, or acting honestly.
4. Subsisting bailment
5. Subsisting lien.
6. Limitation of time, as a result of the expiration of time specified for legal action.

REMEDIES
The remedies available to a person whose chattel has been meddled with, short of
conversion or detinue are:
1. Payment of damages
2. Replacement of the chattel
3. Payment of the market price of the chattel
4. Repair of the damage.
A frequent demonstration of these remedies is in motor accident cases.

Torts of trespass to chattel is made up of:

1. Conversion
2. Detinue
WHAT IS CONVERSION?
Conversion is any inteference, possession or disposition of the property of another
person, as if it is one's own without legal justification. In other words, conversion is
dealing with another person's property as if it is one's own. According to Sir John
Salmond, in his book the Law of Tort, 21st ed. (1996) “A conversion is an act... of
willful interference, without lawful justification, with any chattel in a manner
inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and
possession of it”.
It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had intention to deal with the goods. It is
enough to prove that the defendant interfered with the goods. It is immaterial that the
defendant does not know that the chattel belongs to another person, for instance, if he
innocently bought the goods from a thief. Also,an owner can sue for conversion.
Likewise, a person who has mere custody, temporary possession or caretakership can
sue any third party who tries to detain, dispose, steal or otherwise convert such chattel.
In North Central Wagon & Finance Co. Ltd v Graham (1950) 1 All ER 780, the
defendant hire purchaser sold the car in contravention of the terms of the hire purchase
agreement. In the circumstances the court held that the plaintiff finance company was
entitled to terminate the hire purchase agreement and sue the selling hire purchaser in
the tort of conversion, for recovery of the car.

EXAMPLES OF CONVERSION
Conversion of a chattel, belonging to another person may be committed in many
different
ways.
1. Taking
Where a defendant takes a plaintiffs chattel out of the plaintiff s possession without
lawful justification with the intent of exercising dominion over the goods permanently
or even temporarily, there is conversion. A defendant may not be liable; if he merely
moves the goods without denying the plaintiff of title.
2.Using
Using a plaintiff’s chattels as if it is one's own, such as, by wearing the plaintiff’s
jewellery, as in the case of Petre v Heneage.
3. Alteration: By changing the form of a chattel that belongs to another person
4. Consumption: By eating or using.
5. Destruction: By damaging or obliterating it.
Mere damage of a chattel is not sufficient to make one liable for conversion. As a
general rule of law, mere damage or destruction of a chattel without more, is a trespass
to chattel in tort and also a malicious damage in criminal law.
6. Receiving
Involuntary receipt of goods is not conversion. However, the receiver must not willfully
damage or destroy the goods unless the goods constitute a nuisance. Receiving a chattel
from a third party who is not the owner is a conversion. This is wrongful, for it is an act
of assisting the other person in the conversion of the chattel, or the receiving of stolen
goods.
7. By Detention
In Armory v Delamirie (1722)
A chimney sweep's boy found a jewel and gave it to a jeweler for valuation. The jeweler
knowing the circumstances, took the jewel, detained and refused to return it to the boy.
They boy then sued the jeweler for conversion and for an order for return of the
jewellery to him. The court held: that the jeweler was liable for conversion. A finder of
a property has a good title, and he has a right or interest, to keep it against all persons,
except the rightful owner of the property or his agent.
However, a temporary reasonable refusal by the finder or custodian of a property to
hand it over to a claimant, in order to verify the authenticity of the title of the claimant.
is not actionable, except where the refusal is adverse to the owner's better title. .
8. By Wrongful Delivery
Wrongfully delivery of a person's chattel to another person who does not have title or
right to possession without legal justification is a conversion.
9. Purchase:
At common law, conversion is committed by a person who bought and took delivery of
goods from a seller who has no title to the chattel nor right to sell them. Such as when
a thief, steals and sells a chattel. A buyer in such a situation takes possession at his own
risk, in accordance with the rule of law that acts of ownership are exercised at the
owner’s peril.
10. By Wrongful Disposition: Such as by sale, transfer of title or other wrongful
disposition. In Chukwuka v C.F .A.O. Motors Ltd (1967) the plaintiff sent his car to
the defendant motor company for repairs. Thereafter, he failed to claim the car. Nine
months later the defendants sold the car to a third party who re-registered it in his own
name. The plaintiff sued for conversion. The High Court held: that the defendant was
liable to the plaintiff for conversion of the car.

INNOCENT DELIVERY OR RECEIPT.

Generally, innocent delivery, or innocent receipt are not torts, nor criminal offences.
Thus, innocent delivery is not conversion. Therefore, where an innocent holder of goods,
such as, a carrier, or warehouseman, receives goods in good faith from a person he
believes to have lawful possession of them, and he delivers them, on the person's
instructions to a third party in good faith, there would be no conversion. Similarly,
innocent receipt of goods is not conversion. However the receiver must not willfully
damage or destroy the goods unless the goods constitute a nuisance. In Unipetrol v
Prima Tankers Ltd (1986). The defendant oil tanker owners had a contract to carry
Unipetrol's cargo of fuel from Port Harcourt. The captain of the vessel allegedly went
elsewhere with the cargo of fuel. The plaintiff appellant Unipetrol sued for the
conversion and loss of the cargo. The Court of Appeal held: that the respondents were
liable in conversion. The word "loss" is wide enough to include a claim for conversion
against a carrier. It is elementary law that in a claim for conversion, the claimant is
entitled to the return of the article seized, missing, or in the possession of the other party,
or reimbursement for its value.
In Owena Bank Nig. Ltd v Nigerian Sweets & Confectionery Co. Ltd (1993) The 1st
respondent was granted an import license by the Federal Ministry of Trade to
import granulated sugar. However, the 2nd respondent opened a letter of credit and
imported the sugar. The 1st respondent sued for damages for the wrongful conversion
of the import license. On appeal by the bank, the Court of Appeal held: That the
defendants were liable for conversion of the import license papers.
Thus, an action for conversion will lie in conversion for any corporeal personal property,
including papers and title deeds. To be liable, the defendant need not intend to question
or deny the right of the plaintiff. It is enough that his conduct is inconsistent with the
rights of the person who has title, or right to possession, or use of it. Conversion is an
injury to the plaintiff’s possessory rights in the chattel converted. Whether an act
amounts to conversion or not depends on the facts of each case, and the courts have a
degree of discretion in deciding whether certain acts amount to a sufficient deprivation
of possessory or ownership rights as to constitute conversion.
In conversion, negligence or intention is not relevant, and once the dealing with the
chattel of another person is in such a circumstance that the owner is deprived of its use
and possession, the tort of committed.

LOST PROPERTY RULE

The rules of law applicable to finding a lost property were authoritatively settled by the
English Court of Appeal in the case of Parker v British Airways (1982) . However, the
rules are not often easy to apply. The rules applicable to finding lost
property may be summarized as follows: -
1. A finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it, unless it has been abandoned, or
lost, and he takes it into his care and control. He acquires a right to keep it against
all persons, except the true owner; or a person who can assert a prior right to keep
the chattel, which was subsisting at the time when the finder took the chattel into
his care and control.
2. Any servant, or agent who finds a lost property in the course his employment, does
so on behalf of his employer, who by law acquires the rights of a finder.
3. An occupier of land or a building has superior rights to those of a finder, over
property or goods in, or attached to the land, or building. Based on this rule, in the case
of South Staffordshire Water Co. v Sharman (1896) rings found in a mud of pool and
a pre-historic boat discovered six feet below the surface were held as belonging to the
land owner in the case of Elwes v Briggs Gas (1886)..
4. However, an occupier of premises does not have superior rights to those of a finder
in respect of goods found on or in the premises, except before the finding, the
occupier has manifested an intention to exercise control over the premises, and
things on it. In Parker v British Airways. The plaintiff was waiting in the defendant
airways lounge at Heathrow Airport, London,England when he found a bracelet on the
floor. He handed it to the employees of the defendant, together with his name and
address, and a request that it should be returned to him if it was unclaimed. It was not
claimed by anybody and the defendants failed to return it to the finder and sold it. The
English Court of Appeal held: that the proceeds of sale belonged to the plaintiff who
found it. In Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851)
The plaintiff found a packet of bank notes lying on the floor, in the public part of a
shop, he was held entitled to the money instead of the shop owner, upon the failure of
the rightful owner to come forward to claim the money. As a general rule of law,
anybody who has a finder's right over a lost property, has an obligation in law to take
reasonable steps to trace the true owner of the lost property, before he may lawfully
exercise the rights of an owner over the property he found.

DEFENCES AND REMEDIES FOR CONVERSION

DEFENCES
In an action for conversion of a chattel, the defendant may plead:
1. Jus tertii: Jus tertii is the right of a third party. It is the title or better right of a third
party to the chattel, goods, or property in dispute. As a general rule, a defendant cannot
plead that a plaintiff is not entitled to possession as against him, because a third party
is the true owner of the chattel. A defendant can only plead jus tertii, that is, the better
right of the true owner or third party only when he is acting with the authority of the
true owner.
2. Subsisting bailment
3. Subsisting lien
4. Temporary retention; to enable steps to be taken to check the title of the claimant.
A defendant may temporarily, refuse to give up goods, while steps are taken to
verify the title of the plaintiff who is claiming title before the chattel is handed over
to the plaintiff if he is found to be the owner, or has right to immediate possession.
5. Limitation of time.

REMEDIES
In a claim for the conversion of a chattel several remedies are available to a plaintiff.
1. Order for delivery, return or specific restitution of the goods; or
2. Alternative order for payment of the current market value of the chattel.
3. An order for payment of any consequential damages. However, allowance may be
made for any improvement in the goods, such as, where a person honestly in good
faith buys and improves a stolen car and is sued by the true owner; the damages
may be reduced to reflect the improvements.
4. Recovery of special and general damages. Special damage is recoverable by a
plaintiff for any specific loss proved.
5. General Damages: Furthermore, where for instance, a plaintiff whose working
equipment or tools are converted by another person, a plaintiff may sue for the loss
of profit, or existing contract or wages for the period of the conversion of the work
tools or equipments.

WHAT IS DETINUE?
The tort of detinue is the wrongful detention of the chattel of another person, the
immediate possession of which the person entitled. Detinue is a claim for the specific
return, delivery, or surrender of a chattel to the plaintiff who is entitled to it. An action
in detinue is a claim for the specific return of a chattel wrongfully retained, or
for payment of its current market value and any consequential damages. Anybody who
wrong fully takes, detains, or retains a chattel, and after a proper demand for it, refuses,
or fails to return it to the claimant without lawful excuse may be sued in detinue to
recover it or its value. In the United Kingdom, the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act
1977 has abolished the tort of detinue as a separate tort, and merged it with the tort of
conversion where it is now known as conversion by detinue or detention.
In Nigeria, it still exists as a separate tort. An example of detinue is if A lends some
of his decorations to B for a one day event, and B neglects, refuses or fails to return the
decorations at the end of the as agreed

WHEN TO SUE FOR DETINUE

A plaintiff can only maintain action for the tort of detinue after satisfying two conditions
which are:
1. The plaintiff must have title that is ownership or right to immediate possession of
the chattel.
2. The defendant who is in actual possession of the chattel must have failed, and or
refused to deliver the chattel to the plaintiff after the plaintiff has made a proper
demand for the return of the chattel, without lawful excuse. Thus, there must have
been a demand by the plaintiff for the return of the chattel and a refusal or a failure
to return them. This making of a demand by the plaintiff on the defendant is a
condition precedent which the plaintiff must establish to succeed in his claim for
detinue. In Kosile v Folarin (1989) The defendant motor dealer seized and detained the
motor vehicle he had sold to the plaintiff on credit terms, upon delay by the plaintiff to
fully pay up. The plaintiff buyer sued for detinue claiming damages. The Supreme Court
held: inter alia that the seizure and detention of the vehicle by the defendant was wrong.
The plaintiff was entitled to the return of the vehicle or its value and for loss of the use
of the vehicle until the date of judgment at the rate of N20 per day.
In the above case, the Supreme Court emphasized the requirement that in an action for
detinue, there must have been a demand by the plaintiff on the defendant to return the
chattel, and if the defendant persists in keeping the chattel, he is liable for detinue. In
West Mrica Examinations Council v Koroye (1977) The plaintiff sat for an examination
conducted by the defendant council. The defendant neglected and or refused to release
his certificate. The plaintiff successfully claimed in detinue for his certificate and was
award damages in lieu of the release of the certificate by the Supreme Court.
In Davies v Lagos City Council The defendant city council wrongfully seized and
detained the plaintiff’s taxi cab. The plaintiff sued claiming damages. The Lagos High
Court held that: The plaintiff was entitled to a return of the vehicle and loss of earnings
on the vehicle as a result of the unlawful detention. In this case ADEFARASIN J as he
then was stated that a plaintiff is entitled to loss of earnings on his chattel which he uses
for work or business, thus: “This is not a case in which the plaintiff is entitled to the
value of the vehicle. He is, however, entitled to the losses caused to him as a result of
the unlawful detention. He is entitled to the loss of earning on the vehicle.”
In Oguigo & Sons Ltd v C.O.P (1991) 3 NWLRpt177, p.46 CA. The lorry of the
plaintiff appellant transporter was carrying a customer's goods, when the police
intercepted and seized the vehicle on suspicion that the goods were
contraband.Representations for its release failed to yield result. The appellant claimed
for detinue of the vehicle. The Court of Appeal held: that the appellant was entitled to
the immediate release of the vehicle and damages for its unlawful detention. The
plaintiff must have title or right to immediate possession to be able to sue successfully
for detinue.

DEFENCES AND REMEDIES FOR DETINUE

DEFENCES
In an action for detinue, a defendant may plead that:
1. He has mere possession of the goods
2. That the plaintiff has insufficient title as compared to himself
3. The defendant may plead jus tertii, that is, a third party person has a better title,
provided the defendant is the agent, or has the authority of the third party, or is
claiming under the third party.
4. Innocent delivery
5. Subsisting bailment
6. Subsisting lien on the chattel.
7. Temporary retention of the chattel to enable steps to be taken to check the title of
the plaintiff.
8. Inevitable accident
9. Reasonable defence of a person or property, such as when one beats or injures a
dog that was attacking him or another person.
10. Enforcement of a court order or other legal process, such as levying of execution of
property under a writ of fifa, or the police taking away goods they believe to have
been stolen for the purpose of use as exhibit in evidence before court.

REMEDIES
When a person's chattel is detained by another person, the person who is denied
possession or use of such chattel, has several remedies open to him which include:
1. Claim for Return of the Chattel:
This is a claim for the return of the specific chattel, especially, if the chattel has not
changed its character, content, and it has not been damaged nor destroyed during its
detention.
2. Replacement of the Chattel:
Where possible or appropriate, a defendant may be ordered to replacement the chattel
by supplying an identical or similar chattel. This is possible for instance in the case of
manufacturers of products, who can easily replace the goods by supplying an identical
or similar product.
3. Claim for the Market Value of Chattel:
This is a claim for the current market value of the chattel as may be assessed. The
measure of damage in detinue is usually the market value of the goods as proved at the
time of judgment. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove the market value. Therefore,
where there is default of restitution a plaintiff may claim for payment of the value of
the chattel. This option appears to be the best form of action, where the chattel has
otherwise been removed from jurisdiction, or hidden, damaged, destroyed or otherwise
not found. In such circumstances there is no alternative than to claim for the market
value of the chattel as assessed, plus any specific and general damages for its detention.
4. Recapture or Self help:
A person who is entitled to possession of goods of which he has been wrongfully
deprived may resort to self-help and retake the goods from the custody of the person
detaining it, using only reasonable force after he has made a demand for their return.
However, he may not treapass through the land of an innocent party to retake the goods.
He may only go on such land with permission. However, recapture as a remedy is
usually frowned upon by court for the breach of peace and other offences it may
occasion. This is because self help is an instance of taking the laws into one's hand. See
Agbai v Okogbue. Therefore, a person may not resort to the option of
recapture or self help except it is safe, expected, and reasonable or if it will not be
resisted by the defendant and or persons acting for him.
5. Replevin or Release on Bond:
This is a return of the goods on security, pending the determination of the ownership of
the chattel. When a third party's goods have been wrongfully taken in the course of
levying execution or distress of the movable property of another person or judgment
debtor, such third party claiming ownership may recover them by means of an
interpleader summons determining their ownership. The registrar will then issue a
warrant for the restoration of the goods, to such third party or claimant on bond.
Therefore, Replevin is the re-delivery to an owner of goods which were wrongfully
seized, the action for such re-delivery, and for any specific and general damages
suffered by him as the result of the detention.
6. Damages:
When a defendant has been found liable in detinue, he cannot deprive the plaintiff of
his right to damages for detention of the chattel, simply because he has not been using
it, nor earning anything .from its use. Also, if the wrongdoer has been making use of
the goods for his own purpose, then he must pay a reasonable hire for chattel to the
plaintiff. The reasonable hire usually includes the wear and tear of the goods. Therefore,
as the courts have often affirmed the remedies available for the tort of detinue are an
order for specific return of the chattel, or in default, an order for payment of the value
and also damages that were suffered due to loss of use by the defendant up to the date
of judgment or re-delivery of the chattel to the plaintiff. Also general damages may be
awarded as may be assessed by the court. General damages are usually presumed in this
action, especially for the loss of the use of the chattel.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONVERSION AND TRESPASS

Conversion is different from trespass to chattels in two main respects. These are:
1. In conversion, the conduct of the defendant must deprive the owners of the
possession of the chattel, or amount to a denial or dispute of the title of the owner.
Therefore, mere touching or moving of a chattel and so forth, only amount to trespass.
2. To maintain an action in conversion, the plaintiff need not be in actual possession of
the chattel at the time of the interference. It is enough if the plaintiff has right to
immediate possession of the chattel, that is, the right to demand for immediate
possession of the chattel. In Hollins v Fowler (1875) a cotton broker acting on behalf
of a client, for whom he often made purchases, bought cotton from a fraudster who had
no title to the cotton. The broker then sold it to his client and received only his
commission. At the suit of the true owner for conversion sale, and loss of the goods, the
court held: that the broker was liable in conversion for the full value of the goods.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONVERSION AND DETINUE

Detinue covers the same ground as the tort of conversion by detention. However, some
differences are to be noted which include the following:
1. The refusal to surrender or return a chattel on demand is the essence of detinue, or
detention. There must have been a demand for return of the chattel.
2. Detinue is the proper remedy where the plaintiff wants a return of the specific
goods in question, and not merely an assessed market value. However, where
specific return of the chattel or a replacement will not be possible, an award of the
current market value of the chattel is usually made to the plaintiff.
Before the Common Law Procedure Act 1854, was enacted a defendant had a choice to
either restore the actual chattel or pay the market value. However, since the enactment
of the Act, a court has discretion to order specific restitution, or award the market value
of the chattel to the plaintiff or it may award damages alone if the goods can be replaced
easily.
REFERENCES
1. Kodilinye and Alison: The Nigerian Law of Torts
2. Ese Malemi: Law of Torts