Law of Tort

Efana v Adekunle

If there is a dispute as to which I'd two persons is in possession, the presumption of law is that the person having title to the land is in possession

Bossor v Kessie

In an action for trespass the onus is on the plaintiff to show that he was in defacto possession at the material times

Bourhill v Young

In order got establish a good cause of action in negligence the plaintiff should ensure that he establish that the harm suffered by him was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant

Oteri v Okorodudu

It is a defense to an action for lawful imprisonments, assault or battery they that the restraint upon the plaintiff was carried out in the course of a lawful arrest. The onus of proof of the lawfulness of arrest is on the defendant

R v Harvey

It is a well known principle that a party must be considered to intend that which is the necessary or natural consequence of that which he does

Novus actus interveniens

Snap the chain of causation

Rylands v Fletcher

Strict liability. For certain harmful act an injured plaintiff can recover damages even if the defendant didn't act negligently.

Oteri v Okorodudu

The arrest and detention of the plaintiff on suspicion of the offense of failure to pay income tax was not justified merely because the plaintiff was unable to produce a tax receipt on the spot when asked to do so

Smith v Stone

Where the entry into the plaintiff land was done by a malicious third party. The defendant was not held liable but the third party was held liable as he committed the trespass

Gbajor v Ogunbergui

Where the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for stating his name as a suspect leading to his arrest by police officer. The defendant was not liable for false imprisonment as the arrest had been carried out by the constable in the exercise of his own independent judgement

Chapman v Ellesmere

Where the plaintiff consents to what would otherwise amount to an assault or battery by the defendant, the defendant will have a complete defence

Lawson v Siffrr

A barrister would not be protected from being liable for any negligent misstatement on which his client relied on

Res Ipsa Loquitur

A doctrine under which negligence may be inferred simply because an event occurred, if it is the type of event that would not occur in the absence of negligence. Literally, the term means "the facts speak for themselves."

Hadley v Heller

A duty of care is owed to avoid making careless misstatements which might cause financial loss to persons reasonably relying on them

Phillips v Whiteley

A jeweler who pierced ears for earring is only expected to show the skills of a normal jeweler doing such work and not that of surgeon

Chukwurah v C.F.A.O Motors Ltd

A lien was said to be nothing more than the right to retain possession of a thing until a claim is satisfied and therefore a lien generally cannot confer the right to sell or pass ownership of property

The Wagon Mound case

A man is expected to have the degree of common sense. However where the defendant holds a particular position he will be expected to show the degree of knowledge normally expected of a person in that position

Wright v. McLean

A participant in boxing or wrestling match cannot recover damages from His opponent in respect of blows inflicted upon him during the match for he will be taken to have consented to them

Igbuya v Detegari & others

A person in person of a public duty can not be liable in an action for detinue and trespass to chattel by depriving the owner of the chattel of the possession. In this claim the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence from a veterinary surgeon or officer that the cow is fit for human consumption and the defendant was entitled to seize and destroy the cow that he discovered was not fit for human consumption as a display of performance of public duty

Whiteford v Hunter

A surgeon performing an operation is expected to display the amount of care and skill usually expected of a normal, competent member of his profession

Hey v. Moorhouse

A tenant who hold over at the end of his tenancy does not become a trespasser unless and until the landlord has required him to give up possession and quit the premises

Clarke v Davis

An invitation by police officers to the plaintiff to accompany them to the police station cannot be false imprisonment if they make it clear to him that he is entitled to refuse to go for they will be no restraint

Assault and battery in law of tort

Battery is the actual application of force to the person. While assault means any act which puts the plaintiff in fear that a battery is about to be committed against him. In an action for assault the defendant must have done something to put a reasonable man in fear that violence was about to be applied to him

Agbahowe v Osayiobasa

Driving out a car without the permission of the owner may render the person who drives the car liable in an action for trespass and conversion

Factories Act 1956

Employers of workmen in factories and certain other places owe duties to take certain precautions for the safety of the workmen

Entick v Carrington

Every inversion of property be it ever so minute is a trespass

Coke C.J

Every restraint of the liberty of a free man is an imprisonment

Section 252 of criminal code

Explains assault to include both application of force and a threat or attempt to apply force

Section 286-288 of the criminal code

Explains that an assault is justified if committed in reasonable defence of oneself to another

Section 20 of the Police Act

Give the police officer the power to arrest offenders or suspected offender without warrant

Eze v. Obiefuna

Held that trespass to land consists of the slightest disturbance of possession of land by a person who cannot show a better right of possession

Whiteley v Hilt

If a plaintiff wishes to recover the goods in specie and not merely their value in the form of damages he must sue in detinue. For in conversion the defendant always has the option of keeping the goods and paying their value as damages

Definition of conversion

It is an intentional dealing with or exercise of control over a chattel which seriously interferes with the plaintiff possessor right to possession of such chattel. A defendant will be liable in conversion only where his conduct in relation to the plaintiff goods was intentional. An interference resulting from merely careless conduct is not actionable in conversion

Lawal v Deputy Superintendent of Police

It is battery to set a dog upon a person

Hollins v Fowler

It is conversion to deprive the plaintiff of the possession of his goods by wrongfully transferring of disposing of them to another whether by sale and delivery

Donnelly v Jackman

It is not battery to touch a person in order to draw his attention to something

Beckwith v Shordike

It is trespass to place any material object on the land of another or to bring any object into direct physical contact with another's land without lawful justification. In the above case it was held that it was trespass to encourage a dog to enter into the premises of another

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks

It talks about the proper use of care being taken in order to avoid accidents. Res Ipsa Loquitur - Case Example. The defendant may be liable even if there is no conclusive proof of blame in limited situations. Accident must be the type that does not occur without negligence

Kwaku Mensah b The king

It was clear that to point a loaded gun at the plaintiff is an assault

Debira v Adelaja

It was explained that a tenant in possession can maintain an action in trespass against his own landlord

SPARTAN STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD. V. MARTIN & CO. LTD

It was held that a person who negligently damaged a cable belonging to the power authority, thereby cut off the electricity supply to the plaintiffs nearby factory, was not liable to the plaintiff for loss of profits arising from the stoppage of steel production during the power cut, since there was no duty to avoid causing purely economic loss.

Danso v Oteng

It was held that they only placed the matter before the police for investigation and there was no conclusive evidence to show that the constable arrested under the authorization of the defendant and therefore the defendants could not be held responsible for the arrest and detention

Onasanya v Emmanuel

It was held that throwing of water and refuse on the plaintiff's land was direct acts and thus amounted to trespass but the escape of refuse was indies f invasion and therefore nuisance and not trespass

Balogun v. Alakija

It was held that where a person is lawfully on the premises of another once his license or invitation is terminated he is only allowed a reasonable time in which to leave and thereafter becomes a trespasser

Davies v Lagos city Council

It was said that although the council was entitled to revoke the plaintiff permit for noncompliance with the regulations guiding the use of hackney carriage licences, but it was not entitled to seize the vehicle or take possession of it. The council was therefore liable to trespass

Okola v Uzoka

Law of trespass is designed to protect possession of land rather than ownership

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks co

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable, guided upon considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. Put differently, a defendant will be in breach of his duty of care if he takes less care than the reasonable person would have taken.

Bernstein v Skyviews

No trespass is committed where the plaintiff flew his aircraft at a height of several hundred feet above the plaintiff house

Atta v Amoasi

The defendant was held liable for false imprisonment against the plaintiff as he did not merely share information of suspicion against the plaintiff tor the officers but also lodged a complaint and ensured that the respondent were confined

Paris v Stephny Borough Council

The gravity of the consequence if an accident were to occur must be taken into account. The claimant, a one-eyed man, was employed by the defendants. The conditions in which he worked involved some risk of eye injury. The likelihood of injury was regarded as insufficient to require the defendants to provide goggles to a normal two eyed workman. However the House of Lords held that in the case of the claimant goggles should have been provided.

Kirk v Gregory

The movement of the deceased person ring from one room to another without permission was held to be trespass

Donoghue v Stevenson

The neighbor principle. It explains that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee which would be likely to injure your neighbor. A manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to consumers to ensure that the goods are free from harmful defects.

Jibowo v Kuti

The plaintiff was driving his car along a dual carriageway near Agodi, Ibadan, when a bus travelling in the opposite direction suddenly careered across the central island and collided with his car. In an action for negligence brought against the driver of the bus, the latter attributed the mishap to a tyre burst in his vehicle, and pleaded "inevitable accident". The court held that a person relying on this defence must show that something happened over which he had no control and which could not have been avoided by the greatest care and skill. Since the defendant / respondent had not led any evidence to explain the cause of the tyre-burst

Bolton v Stone

The plaintiff was struck and injured by cricket ball as he was walking along a public road adjacent to a cricket ground. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, who was in charge of the ground, had been negligent in failing to take precautions to ensure that cricket balls did not escape from the ground and injure passers- by; but the court held that, taking into account such factors as the distance of the pitch from the road, the presence of a seven-foot-high fence, and the frequency with which the balls had escaped previously, the likelihood of harm to passers-by was so slight that the defendant had not been negligent in allowing cricket to be played without having taken further precautions such as raising the height of the fence.

Section 35 of the 1999 constitution

The right to personal liberty. Every individual has the right to be free from false imprisonment

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Chartered Bank Ltd

The rule in an action for conversion of negotiable instruments is that the plaintiff can claim the full amount represented by the instrument

Okeke v Igboeri

The tort of false imprisonment is restraining or detaining of a person if the person doing or causing the imprisonment has no right in law to imprison the other

Trespass to chattels

This tort may be defined as a direct and wrongful interference with a chattel in the possession of the plaintiff. Such interference being either intentional or negligent

Salmond stated that

To refuse or omit to leave the plaintiff land is as much a trespass as to enter originally without right

Definition of Tort

Tory may be defined as a civil wrong involving the breach of duty fixed by law, such duty are generally owed to persons and this breach is primarily redressable by an action for damages. The aim of tort is to compensate the person harmed by wrongful conduct of others

Omasanya v. Emmanuel

Trespass can be committed by directly placing or projecting any material object upon the land of the plaintiff

Fouldes v Willoughby

Trespass to chattel was committed when the defendant moved the plaintiff horses out of the ferry

Ward v Macaulay

Trespass to chattels protects possession rather than ownership. The plaintiff in an action for trespass to chattel must have had actual possession of it at the time of the interference by the defendant

Trespass Quare Classic Fregit

Trespass to land

Omasanya v Emmanuel

Trespass to land is committed where the defendant without lawful justification enters upon the land in the possession of the plaintiff or remains upon such land or directly places or projects any material object upon such land

Elwes v Brigg Gas Co.

Where a chattel is found attached to or under the surface of land it seems to be established that the owner of the land has s better title to the chattel than the finder

Union Bank v Ajaku

Where a customer was not allowed to leave the bank premises by a gateman. It was held to be false imprisonment

Mange v Drurie

Where the chain of causation had been broken when the injured party discharged himself from the hospital for two days after the defendant had taken him to the hospital and his leg became infected. The plaintiff claim for damages for loss of the leg was rejected on the ground that compensation will not generally be awarded in respect of injury result of the act of the injured party

Clayton v Le Roy

Where the defendant is in possession of the plaintiff chattel without authority and refuses to surrender it to the plaintiff when asked to he commits conversion. In refusing to hand over the plaintiff goods he has shown an intention to keep it in defiance of the plaintiff rights

Ekwo v Enechukwu

Where the defendant offered to take the plaintiff to the hospital but he refused and went to a native doctor. The injury got worse and his hand had to be amputated. The evidence showed that the amputation was the result of the plaintiff act as had he agreed to come to the hospital earlier the fracture could have been cured. The court held that there was no direct physical connection between the negligence of the defendant and the amputation and therefore could not be held liable

Udechukwu v Okwuka

Where the defendant was held liable in detinue for his refusal to deliver the plaintiff car to the driver

Ajao v Ashiru

Where the plaintiff paper mill was seized by the defendant and the defence of the defendant to the claim of the plaintiff was that the pepper mill was seized by police. The court held that the defendant was liable on the ground that the police acted at his instance in seizing the pepper mill of the plaintiff. Those who set a ministerial rather than a judicial officer in motion in this way are as liable for the wrongful seizure of another's property as if they had done it themselves

Barnett v Chelsea

Which employed the "but-for" test. Where the doctor was guilty of a breach of his duty of care towards the patient but this breach could not be said to have been a cause of the death because even if the deceased had been examined and treated with proper care, he would in all probability have died. It could not therefore be said that "but for the doctor's negligence the deceased would have lived"

Kodinlinye defined Tort

as a civil wrong involving a breach of duty fixed by law, such duty being owed to persons genenally and its breach being redressable primarily by an action for damages.