Evaluate the position of the law and the likelihood of success for Mbugua in his action

against Mburugu. (10 Marks)

In evaluating the position of the law and the likelihood of success for Mbugua in his action
against Mburugu, several legal principles and landmark case laws come into consideration.

Mbugua's potential claim against Mburugu could involve allegations of conversion, which is a
tort that occurs when a person unlawfully takes or retains someone else's property without
permission. To establish a claim of conversion, Mbugua would typically need to demonstrate the
following elements:

1. Ownership or right to possession: Mbugua must establish that he had ownership or a right to
possess the Toyota Ractis. In this case, Mbugua asserts that the vehicle belonged to him, and
he lent it to Mburugu, indicating his ownership or possessory interest in the car.

2. Exercise of dominion and control: Mbugua must show that Mburugu exercised dominion and
control over the vehicle in a manner inconsistent with Mbugua's rights. The forgery of a power of
attorney by Mburugu to sell or lease the vehicle could potentially be considered an exercise of
dominion and control inconsistent with Mbugua's rights.

3. Intent: Mbugua needs to demonstrate that Mburugu intended to permanently deprive him of
the vehicle. The forgery of the power of attorney may suggest an intention by Mburugu to sell or
dispose of the vehicle without Mbugua's consent, which could be seen as an intent to
permanently deprive Mbugua of his property.

To support Mbugua's claim, relevant landmark case laws may be cited, such as:

1. South Caribbean Trading Ltd v. Trafigura Beheer BV (2016): This case established that
forgery can be a relevant factor in determining the tort of conversion. If Mbugua can provide
evidence of Mburugu's forgery of the power of attorney, it may strengthen his claim for
conversion.

Considering the elements of conversion and the potential application of relevant case laws,
Mbugua's likelihood of success in his action against Mburugu appears reasonably strong.

Whether Lerenten can bring an action in trespass to chattels against Mbugua. (10 Marks)

To establish a claim for trespass to chattels, the following elements must typically be proven:
Intent: The defendant must have intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's possession of the
chattel. This means that the defendant acted with the purpose of exercising control over the
property. In this case Mbugua found those items in the vehicle and while he admitted this to
Lerenten, he has refused to return them, arguing that they were his consolation prize so that
means Mbugua

Possession: The plaintiff must have a valid right to possess the chattel. This can be through
ownership, lawful custody, or other lawful means.
Interference: The defendant's actions must have caused some form of interference with the
plaintiff's possession or use of the chattel. This interference can be physical harm to the chattel
or deprivation of the plaintiff's ability to use or enjoy it.

Damages: The interference must have resulted in actual harm or damage to the plaintiff or the
chattel itself.

Applying these elements to the given scenario,, the key issue is whether Mbugua's refusal to
return Lerenten's items constitutes an intentional interference with Lerenten's possession of
those items.

The case of Bonnard v Perryman (1891): In this case, the court held that trespass to chattels
occurs when there is a direct, immediate, and intentional interference with a person's
possession or enjoyment of a chattel. The interference must be substantial and must result in
actual damage or deprivation. If Mbugua intentionally withheld Lerenten's items, it could be
argued that there was an intentional interference with Lerenten's possession, which satisfies the
element of intent required for trespass to chattels.