Before we forge ahead lets know
the meaning of the word “tort”.
Tort is a civil wrong
involving a breach of duty fixed by the law, such duty being owed to persons
generally and its breach been redresible primarily by an action for damages.
The essential aim of the law of torts is to compensate persons harmed by the
wrongful conduct of others, and substantive law of torts consists of the rules
and principles which have been developed to determine when the law will and
when it will not grant redress for damages suffered.
The law of interference to
goods was traditionally governed by common law principles which recognized a
number of actions in tort for injury or interference with goods, which
are: trespass to goods, conversion and detinue,
of which the reformed Act created a new form of tortious liability called
wrongful interference with goods, which is defined in section 1 of
the Act to include
conversion, trespass to goods, negligence in so far as it result in damages to
goods or to damages to goods.
Trespass to goods: The tort to chattel is a
direct and wrongful interference with a chattel in the possession of the
plaintiff, such interference being either intentional or negligent. Trespass to chattel is actionable per se. It
covers the conduct of actual destruction or damaging of goods, through use of
goods to simply moving goods from one place to another. For example Kink V
Gregory, a
deceased persons executor moved rings belonging to the formal from one room to
another because he mistakenly but genuinely believed that they were at risk
from relelers in the house. The executor was held for trespass to the rings
when they were lost. And also in Davies V Lagos City Council, which the defendant council
had granted the plaintiff a hackney carriage liecence to operate a taxi cab in
the Lagos area. The plaintiff was well
aware that the permit was for his exclusive use and not transferable, but he
nonetheless caused it to be transferred to a third party, who operated a tax
cab in the purported exercise of their power to revoke the permit seized the
plaintiffs taxi and detained it at the L.C.C pound. In action for trespass
brought by the plaintiff, Adefarasin J. held that the council was entitled to
revoke the plaintiff’s permit for non-compliance with the regulations governing the use of hackney
carriage liecence, but it was not entitled to seize the vehicle or otherwise
take possession of it.
INTEREST
PROTECTED
a. One of the interests
protected is the plaintiff’s right to retain possession of his chattel. It is also protected under the tort of
conversion.
b.
This tort also protects the plaintiff’s interest in the physical
condition of his chattel. Finally, the tort protects the plaintiff’s interest
in the chattel against any form of intermeddling. Direct Act: The Act of trespass must be direct to the chattel.
That is that, the touch or intermeddling by the defendant must be direct upon
the object or chattel in the possession of the plaintiff. If the contract with the chattel was an
indirect act to cut and carry away the tress on the plaintiffs land or to beat
his dog, as in Heyden V Smith and Wright V Ramsot . It is important to note that the mistake of
the defendant as to the ownership of the chattel and his right to touch and
carry such a chattel to another place is not materials to this action.
The
question of possession
The plaintiff must be in
possession of the chattel at the time of the tort, or have the right to
immediate possession and ownership of the chattel is irrelevant except it might
help in establishing the right to
immediate possession. For eg in Johnson V Diprose, lord ESH
emphasized that the plaintiff in an action of trespass must at the
time of trespass have the present
possession of the goods, either actual
or constructive, or a legal right to the immediate possession.
Manner of trespass
It can be carried out in various ways
a. Taking the
chattel away form the plaintiff’s possession like in Davies V
Lagos City Council, the court stated that there may be a trespass without the infliction of
any material damagers and also in Kirk
V Gregory, where there was removal form where the plaintiff left the chattel
without any intention to dispossess.
b. Causing
damages to chattel by making contract with it with ones person or another chattel.
c. Touching of a chattel that could be affected by
such touch, such as great works of art, could give the person in possession the
right of action in trespass.
THE
ISSUE OF INTENT
The defendant must intend to
achieve some interference with the plaintiff’s chattel eg. When X
intends to knock B’s pipes and achieved this without any justification,
he is liable in trespass. Where it cannot be established as either intentional
or negligent, the conduct will have to be seen as accidental, as in the rule in
Leame
V Bray, which states that “if the injury
be done at the time, or he be the immediate cause of it, though it happens
accidentally or by misfortune, yet he is answerable in trespass.
CONVERSION
Conversion can be defined as any willful or intentional
dealing with exercise of control, over a chattel, which interferes with the
plaintiff’s possession of such chattel.
In conversion, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have had actual
possession of the goods at the time of interference but it is sufficient if he
had an immediate right to possession. Interference must be willful, intentional
and wrongful, in Ashby V Tolhurst, it was held that if the defendant’s conduct
is merely negligence, it will not amount to conversion. The acts which constitute
conversion are wrongful, destruction of
the goods wrongful disposal of goods and wrongful delivery of the goods. A
person who treats goods as if there were his when they are not is liable to be
sued, in conversion. This is said to turn on the defendant’s denial of the
plaintiff’s title eg if I sale
a persons goods without his consent, I should
certainly be liable to him, it would be quite wrong for me , however, innocent I was , to
keep the prince of someone else’s
goods. In Bryanston Leasing Ltd a possessor who refuses to hand over the thing to a person
entitled to demand it also commits conversion, and other act which result in the
loss of a the goods may be constituted as denial of claimants title,
through in some case, the defendant must have knowledge that he was doing wrong to bring claim in conversion. It is neither necessary
nor sufficient to own such right cannot sue, even if he is owner. The interference
must be willful and wrongful. In Hollons V Fowler, Balckburn J. says that “A warehouseman with goods that have been
deposited is guilty of no conversion by keeping them or restoring them to the
person who deposited than with his, though that person turns out to have no
authority from the true owner
TYPES OF CONVERSION
a. By wrongfully taking the goods – that is taking
must accompanied by an intention to exercise temporary or permanent dominion
over the goods.
b. By
wrongfully detaining the goods – It constitute conversion only if accompanied
by an intention to keep goods from the person entitled to possession of them.
c. By wrongfully destroying goods
d. By wrongfully disposing of the good
e. By wrongfully delivering of the goods
TITLE TO SUE
The plaintiff must be entitled to
possession of the good, although he need not have actual possession.
REMEDIES
a. Recovering of the value of
the goods and damages for detention
b.
Return of the goods or recovering of the value of the goods and damages
for detention
c.
Return of the goods and damages for detention.
DETINUE
Detinue which has now been abolished could be brought
by a bailor against his bailee or by a person entitled to possess a thing
against the person in actual possession of it.
Detinue had 2 (two) advantages, it gives rise as
against a possession to a right to have the thing back, and it made a bailee
liable for carelessly ceasing to possess. The 1977 Act allows a judge to order
the redelivery of the thing in any
appropriate case, and in turn the wrongful
failure to look after a thing into an act of conversion. The common law was that a claim in detinue
lay at the suit of a person who had an immediate right to the possession of the goods against
another who is in actual possession of them, and who, upon proper demand,
failed to deliver them up without lawful exercise but now 2 (1) of the 1977
Act provides tersely that Detinue is
abolished. The actions is now framed as one for wrongful interference with
goods and all other recommendations made were implemented in the torts
Claims under the wrongful interference with goods
The
claims under wrongful interference with goods are seen in the tort interference
with goods Act 1977, which introduced
common remedies in any form of wrongful interference with goods.
Section 3 of the acts provides that in proceeding for
conversion or any other tort regarding chattel, against a person in possession
or control of the goods, the following relief may be given, as far as is
appropriate
a. An order for delivering and for payment of any
consequential damages.
b.
An order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of
paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either
alternative with payment of any consequential damages. Or
c. Damages
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as we have seen above these three
(3) torts are concerned with
interference with goods, and for the most part, the same principles regarding the assessment of
damages apply to each. The
amendments made by the 1977 Act were all observed and carried out and also the abolition of detinue under
section 2 of the Act and the Acts also provides for remedies in section 3 of
the Act