FACULTY OF LAW

DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW

UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI

COURSE CODE : LAW 303

COURSE TITLE: LAW OF TORTS

GROUP
GROUP ASSIGNMENT QUESTION:

GROUP MEMBERS
I.D NUMBERS/NAMES
18/06/01/ CHAFARI AUGUSTINE HALIDU
18/06/01/
18/06/01/
18/06/01/
18/06/01/
18/06/01/

DATE: 12th FEBRUARY, 2022.

COURSE LECTURER: MALAM ALAMIN DERIBE

 According to Scrutton L J in the case of Place v Searle, Enticement consists in
‘persuading, inducing, inciting or procuring the wife of another without lawful
justification to leave and remain apart from her husband'.
Black law dictionary 4th edition defined 'Entice' to mean: to wrongfully solicit,
persuade, procure ,allure, attract, or seduce.

Elements of the tort of enticement.

The requirements for successful action in enticement were laid down in the case of
SHARPLES V BARTON (1957)13 WACA 189 and are summarised as follows:
1. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant actively procured, persuaded or induced
the plaintiff’s wife to depart from the matrimonial home. ‘

2. It is not sufficient for the plaintiff to show merely that the defendant assisted or aided
and abetted the wife’s departure from her husband, where the decision to leave was that
of the wife herself ‘enticement involves the deliberate break-up of marriage’.

3. It is not sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the defendant led the plaintiff’s wife to
have adulterous intercourse with him nor is it sufficient to show that he alienated her
affections from the plaintiff.

It is important to note that courts in Nigeria are not willing to uphold actions for
enticement without clear proof of active procurement or persuasion. Two cases serve to
illustrate the unwillingness of the Nigerian courts to uphold actions for enticement
without clear proof of active procurement and persuasion.
In the case of ADU V. GILLISON (1962) W.N.L.R. 390, the plaintiff, who was a
lecturer at the then University College, lbadan, sued the defendant, a senior medical
officer in the same institution, for damages for the alleged enticement of the plaintiff's
wife. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff and his wife had been "at daggers drawn"
for some time, and that the plaintiff had committed numerous acts of violence against her.
The plaintiff founded his case on the allegation that the defendant had, unknown to the
plaintiff, advised the plaintiff's wife to leave the matrimonial home and to return to
England, her country of origin, and that the defendant had not chosen to play the part of
aider and abettor and had minded his own business, or had put the plaintiff in the picture
as to all his activities, it was possible that the plaintiff's wife might not have gone to
England as she did with her children too. "The defendant defence was that he had advised
the plaintiff's wife on medical grounds and in good faith that a period of separation from
her husband would help her to readjust herself and to restore her emotional equilibrium"
The learned Judge Somolu J. Held that the defendant was not liable for enticement since
there was no evidence of active inducement or persuasion by the defendant who, at
most, had merely aided and abetted the plaintiff in carrying out a decision which she had
taken herself. This was also the position of law in the case of SOLOMON V
CHUKUANI (1972)2 ECSLR 619 where Okagbue J opined that since there was
insufficient evidence of positive acts of enticement by the defendant, the plaintiff's claim
must fail.
Nevertheless, an action for enticement succeeded in WAGBARA V WOBO (1971) 1 R
S L R 14. In the case the plaintiff had a wife, N, whom he had married according to
customary law. The plaintiff and N had lived together in the former's house as husband
and wife for about three years, when N left the plaintiff on the pretext that she was going
to assist her mother who had recently given birth to a baby. The defendant later confessed
to a juju priest that N was his girlfriend and that she had been staying with him in his
house, but he denied that he knew her to be married to the plaintiff. Counsel for the
defendant argued, inter alia, that the action for enticement was available only to persons
married under the Marriage Act,1914. lnko-Tariah J. First of all reviewed the evidence.
He regarded it as particularly significant that, after confessing to priest, the defendant had
asked the latter to plead with the plaintiff on his behalf to give N up to him,and that he
had expressed his intention of Marrying N. This showed "that the defendant persuaded
the plaintiff's wife to leave the plaintiff's house and come to his(defendant's) house to live
with him, which infact she did".
The learned Judge distinguished SHARPLES V BARTON (supra) on ground that in that
case there was only evidence of adultery, whereas in the presenct case there was evidence
that the defendant persuaded N the plaintiff's consortium and to move in with him ( the
defendant).
By way of conclusion, In an action for enticement in Nigerian courts, evidence of clear
prove of active procurement or persuasion is an indispensable element as provided in the
cited cases supra.