First
of all, it will be very important to say in a precise meaning what tort as a
civil wrong means: it is a civil wrong involving a breach of duty fixed by the
law, such duty being owed to persons generally and its breach being redressible
primarily by action for damages law of tort
aims to compensate persons harmed by the wrongful conduct of
others.
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
Law exist in the society to regulate the conducts of
people, sometimes the law is there for settlement of unintentional interference
to ones property. Trespass to chattels
can be seen as a direct and wrongful interference with a chattel in the possession
of the plaintiff. It tries to protect the interest of the plaintiff in
retaining possession of his/her chattels.
It also protects the chattel for intermeddling against the plaintiff.
It is important to note, that trespass to chattels
takes various forms. That is to say that for an act to constitute trespass, it
can take a form of destroying, damaging or merely using goods, or wrongfully
moving them from one place to another.
In
the case of Davies V Lagos City Council (1973) 10 CCHCJ 151.
In that case, the dependant council had granted the plaintiff a hackney
carriage licence to operate taxi cab in the Lagos area. The plaintiff was will
aware that the permit was for his exclusive use and was not transferable, but
he nonetheless caused it to be transferred
to a third party, who operated a taxi- cab on the strength of it. On leaning of
this, certain officials of the council.
The plaintiffs taxi and detained it at the L.C.C. pound. In action for trespass brought by the
plaintiff.
The court held, that the council was entitled to
revoke the plaintiff permit for non-compliance with the regulations governing
the use of hackney carriage licence. But
it was not entitled to seize the vehicle or otherwise take possession of it.
The council was therefore liable to trespass.
Moreover, it must be unforgotten that trespass to
chattels is actionable perse, that is to say, without proof of actual
damage. Thus, the mere wrongful moving or touching of a chattel without any
harm being caused is actionable.
Talking about intention or negligence, trespass
to chattels was a tort of strict liability, and it was unnecessary for the
plaintiff to prove that the defendants act was intentional or negligent but the
modern rule is that either intentional or negligence must be established and
there is no liability for an interference with goods which is merely
accidental. But accidental trespass must be distinguished from cases of
trespass by mistake, for if the interference with the chattel is intentional,
it is nodefence that the defendant would not have committed the trespass if he
had not been mistaken as to his right to interfere, or that he did not realized
he was committing a trespass
PROTECTION OF POSSESSION
Trespass to chattels protects possession mere than ownership. An action for trespass to a chattel must have had actual possession by the plaintiff at the time of the interference by the defendant. The above principles has the following advantages or consequences:
i.
The of a chattel will liable in trespass if he
interferes with it at a time when it is in the lawful possession of
another person
ii.
A person who
acquires possession of goods wrongfully
can maintain an action in trespass against any person
who interferes with the goods except the owner or a person acting under the authority of the owner.
iii.
When the owner of
chattel have not gotten actual possession of it. He cannot maintain action over the goods or
chattel at the time of the interference
CONVERSION
It is important to state here, that conversion is an
intentional seizure or exercise of control over a chattel which seriously
internees with the plaintiffs possession or right to possession of such
chattel. Conversion is a bit related to trespass in that it primarily protects
possession rather than ownership of goods. There are many ways by which
conversion interferes with good, which will or can give rise to liability of
both torts. The following are where trespass differs from conversion:
i.
In trespass it
may be international or negligent but the act must constitute an international
act for it to amount to conversion,
ii.
In conversion it
is not necessary for the plaintiff to have had actual possession of the goods
at the time of the interference, it is enough if he had an immediate right to
possession but it is not like that in trespass
iii.
To move a chattel
from one place to another without any intention to take possession of it does
not amount to conversion but in trespass it could amount to trespass
ACT OF CONVERSION
1. Conversion by taking
2.
Conversion by
destruction
3.
Conversion by
using
4.
Conversion by
receiving
DETINUE
Where the
defendant is in possession of the plaintiff chattel without authority and
refuses to surrender it to the plaintiff when asked to do so, he commits conversion by detention as well as detinue. To be more
precised, detinue covers that same
ground a conversion by detention, the followings are the
differences between the two:
i.
The defendant
will not be liable for conversion by detention when before the demand for their
return by the plaintiff, the goods have been lost or destroyed whether by accident or by negligence of the
defendant. But the defendant will be liable in detinue in such circumstances,
unless he proves that the goods were not lost or destroyed through his
negligence.
ii.
In detinue the
plaintiff can claim specific restitution of the goods, but he cannot do so in
conversion.
iii.
In conversion,
damages are generally accessed on the value o the good at the date of
conversion, but in detinue they are assumed on the value of the goods at the
date of the trial. Example of a successful action I detinue is found in the
case of Udechukwu V Okwuka (1956) 14
W,A,C,A 70. In that case, the
plaintiff bought a kit-car from the defendant and after the sale, left it on
the defendant’s premises, having told the plaintiff, driver to hand over the
earnings of the car to the defendant for safe keeping. Later, when the plaintiff went to collect the
car, the defendant refuses to allow him to take it away until the defendant saw
the driver.
One of the arguments of the defendant was that he was
not liable in detinue since his refusal to hand over the care was not
categorical but merely conditional. De
Lestany FJ. Delivering the judgment of the West African court of appeal
rejected this contention and held the defendant liable in detinue.
The common law principle that a party may be liable in
action for detinue and trespass to chattel by depriving the owner of the
chattel of the possession of his chattel in not applicable if the tort of detinue
or trespass to chattel is committed
by a person in the course of
performance of public duty. This principle was captured in the case
of Igbuya V Deregare and or (1990) 5 WLR pt
139 pg 425