In summary, law of interference to goods was originally governed by common law principles, which deals with some number of actions in tort for injury to goods, for example, being trespass to good, detinue and conversion.
The amendment protects persons whose possession of
goods is interfered with. The reform committee that led to a recommendation
that various torts relating to intentional interferences with
goods should be
replaced by a single tort of “wrongful interference with chattels”. The act
1977 created a new form of tortous
liability called wrongful interference with good. Section 2 (1) abolished
detinue while section 1 of the Act gave way to the general form as wrongful
interference with goods Act to follows
as:
-
Trespass to goods
-
Tort resulting in
damage to goods as regards to section 2 of the Act etc
Tort is a civil
wrong involving breach of duty fixed by the law, such duty being owed to
persons generally and its breach being redressible primarily by an action for
damages1. The essence of tort is in law is to
compensate person who suffered injury as a result of wrongful conduct of
another person. Tort is of common law
origin. It has developed long ago to determine when law will and when it will
not grant redress for damages suffered.
However according to Salmond and Heuston2, “a
civil wrong is one which
gives rise to civil proceeding –proceeding, that is to say, which
have as their purpose the enforcement of some rights claimed by the plaintiff against
the dependant”.
From the foregoing definitions it is obvious that tort
is civil wrong that renders person liable for payment of damages. So I define tort as a civil wrong involving
omission or commission of an Act that results to injury to a person, which
attracts compensation in form of damage to the injured party by the tortfeasor.
This damage is claimable only through court action using civil procedure such
omission or commission is a breach of a duty fixed by law which is owed to
persons generally.
The injury suffered can be in form of physical injury
to person, physical damage to property (chattel), injury to reputation and
damage to economic interests, detinue, and conversion among others.
Trespass to chattel, Conversion and Detinue
The three sets of tort that protect the possessor of a
chattel from wrongful interference are torts of trespass to chattel, conversion
and detinue.3 It is meant to protect
possessory right of goods from direct invasion or wrongful interference.
Trespass to chattels
In law of tort trespass to chattel is a direct and wrongful interference with a chattel in the possession of the plaintiff. The interference may be negligent or intentional. This unlawful tampering with goods of person is called trespass to chattel. The interests which this aspect to tort wants to protect are interests in retaining possession of the chattel, interests in the physical condition of the chattel and interest in protecting the chattel against intermedding.4 Trespass to chattel can take various forms such as destroying, using goods or removing them from one place to another wrongfully.5
In case of Davies V Lagos City Council6 where trespass to chattel is determined by
court. The defendant council granted the
plaintiff an over used carriage licence to operate a taxicab in Lagos. The
plaintiff was aware it is meant for exclusive use and not transferable. But he
transferred it to a third party. On learning this, the official of the council
seized the plaintiff’s taxi and detained it, in an action for trespass by the
plaintiff, the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed and held
the defendants jointly and severally liable for seizing the taxi without a just
cause is a wrongful act. In cases of Ajao
V Ashiru7 and National Coal
Board V Evans8 the issue of
trespass to chattel was examined.
Before, trespass to chattels was a tort of strict
liability and it is immaterial that the dependant’s conduct is intentional or
negligent. But the modern rule is that either intentional or negligent must be
established and there is no liability for an interference with goods, which is
merely accidental.
Conversion
This of course, means an intentional dealing with or
exercise of control over a chattel which seriously interferes with the plaintiff’s possession or right to
possession of such goods. It resembles trespass because it protects primarily
possession other than ownership like
trespass to chattels and an act of interference gives rise to liability in
both. Though there are still differences that exist between them. For instance,
conversion must be intentional whereas trespass must be intentional or
negligent9. Again it is not conversation to move
goods from one place to another while it is trespass
Moreover, a person is liable in conversion when his
conduct in relation to goods of another person is intentional. An interference
resulting from mere careless conduct is not actionable in conversion10. To amount to it, the intent of the
defendant must be to deal with goods by exercising dominion over them on his
behalf or on behalf of third party. It is conversion to take goods without
lawful justification out of possession of the person entitled to them with
intent of exercising a permanent or
temporary control over them11
In case of Tormekpey V Ahiable 12 where the defendant sold and
delivered lorry to the plaintiff under credit sale agreement, with effect of
which property passed to the buyer on delivery without right of seizure
reserved to the dependant upon any contingency. Later on after many months, the
dependant wrongfully seized the lorry and refused to hand it back to the
plaintiff. The learned trial judge of
court of appeal held the defendant
liable in conversion as well as in trespass and detinue
Detinue
In tort law detinue is an action to recover for the
wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who
claims to have a greater right to immediate possession than the current
possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed a claimant must first prove that he had better right to
possession than the dependant of the chattel and secondly that the dependent
refused to return the chattel once
demanded by the claimant. Detinue allows for remedy for damage for the value of
the chattel, but unlike most other interference torts, detinue also allows for the recovery
of the specific chattel being withheld.
It was held in case of Udechukwu V. Okwuka13 that the dependant is liable where he sold a car to the plaintiff and the car was bailed to him by
the driver of the plaintiff
according to his master instruction. When
the plaintiff wanted and demanded it the dependant refused to release the car
unless he sees the driver who kept it at his premises for safekeeping. This
decision is harsh in terms of detinue.