LAW OFTORT

DEFI
NITI
ONOFTORT

Theword“t
ort”i
sderiv
edfr
om t
heLat
inword“t
ort
us”whichmeans“t
wist
ed”
.Inl
egal
cont
ext
howev
er,“
tort
”isalegalwr
ongf
orwhi
chthelawprov
idesaremedy.

ProfessorSi
rJohn.W.Sal
monddef i
nedtortas;“aci
vi
l wr
ongforwhichtheremedyisa
commonl awacti
onforunl
iqui
dat
eddamages, andwhichi
snotexclusi
velyt
hebreachof
cont
ractorthebr
eachoftr
ustorothermerelyequit
abl
eobligat
ion.
”

Ontheot herhand,Kodi
l
iny
edefi
nedtor
tas;“
acivi
lwrongi
nvol
vingabreachofdut
yfi
xedbyt
he
l
aw, suchdutybeingowedtoper
sonsgener
all
yandit
sbreachbeingr
edressabl
epr
imari
l
ybyan
act
ionf ordamages.”

OBJECTI
VESOFTORTLAW

1.Compensat i
on:Themostobv i
ousobject
iveoft
orti
st oprov
ideachannelf
orcompensat
ing
vi
ctimsofinjuryandloss.Tor
tisthemeanswherebyissuesofli
abi
l
itycanbedeci
dedand
compensationassessedandawar ded.

2.Prot
ecti
onofi nt
erest
s: Thelawoft or
tprotectsaperson’sint
erest
sinlandandot herproperty
,
i
nhi sorherreputat
ion,andi nhisorherbodil
yintegr
ity.Var
ioustort
shav ebeendevelopedf or
thesepurposes.Forexampl e,thetor
tofnuisanceprotectsaperson’suseorenjoymentofl and,
thetortofdefamati
onpr otectshisorherreputati
on,andthetortofnegl
igenceprot
ectsthe
breachesofmor egeneral duti
esowedt othatperson.

3.
Deterrence:I
thasbeensuggestedthattherulesoftorthaveadeterr
enteffect
, encouraging
peopletotakefewerr
isksandt oconductthei
racti
vi
ti
esmor ecaref
ull
y,mindfuloftheir
possi
bleeffect
sonotherpeopleandt hei
rpropert
y.Thiseffectisr
efl
ectedinthegr eat
er
awarenessoftheneedf orr
iskmanagementbymanuf acturers,
employers,
healt
hpr ov
idersand
other
s.Thisisencour
agedbyi nsur
ancecompani es.

5.
Vindi
cati
on:Tortprovi
desthemeanswherebyapersonwhoregardshi
mselforhersel
fas
i
nnocenti
nadi sputecanbev i
ndi
cat
edbybeingdecl
aredpubl
i
clytobe‘i
ntheright
’byacourt
.
However,
againitmustbenot edt
hatmanycasesneveract
ual
lycomebeforeacourtandthe
opport
uni
tyforsati
sfact
iondoesnotar
ise.

6.
Lossdistr
ibuti
on:Tor
tisfr
equent
lyr
ecognized,r
athersi
mpli
sti
cal
ly
,asav ehi
clef
or
di
str
ibut
inglossessuff
eredasaresul
tofwrongfulacti
vi
ti
es.I
nthi
scontextl
ossmeanst
he
costofcompensatingforhar m suf
fered.Thismeansr edist
ri
buti
onofthecostf r
om t he
cl
aimantwhohasbeeni njuredtothedef endant,orinmostcasest hedefendant’
si nsur
ance
company.Ult
imately,everyonepayinginsuranceorbuy inggoodsatahi gherpri
cet ocover
i
nsurancepayment swillbearthecost.Thepr ocessisnoteasi l
yundert
akenandi tinvol
ves
consi
derabl
eadmi nistr
ativ
eexpenseswhi charer ef
lectedinthecostofthetor
tsy stem i
tsel
f.

TORTCOMPAREDTOSOMEOTHERASPECTSOFLAW

Tor
tandCont
ract

Torti
sabr eachofadut yimposedbylaw.Inmanyi nstances,t
hepar ti
esinatortarepreviousl
y
unconnected.Therei
sof t
ennopr i
vi
tyofcontr
act.Tortisconcernedwi t
hprotecti
ngi nt
erests
andcompensat ingwrongs,i
njur
iesordamage.Liabil
it
yintortisoftenbasedonf aultor
occurr
enceofdamage.I tisal
soconcernedwithunsafepr oducts.Liabil
it
yisdeterminedbyt he
remotenessofdamagebasedonf oresi
ghtofthetypeofhar m.Tor taimst or
estoreapl aint
if
fto
hispr
e-accidentorpr
e-wrongpositi
on.Li
mitat
ionoftimer unsfrom t hedatet
hewr ongor
damageoccur red.

Meanwhil
e,acontr
actisabindi
ngagreementbetweent woormoreper
sons.Themai
n
di
sti
nct
ionbetweentortandcont
ractist
hatintor
ttheduti
esofthepar
ti
esarepri
mar
il
yfi
xedby
l
aw,whereasi
ncontracttheyar
efixedbythepart
iesthemsel
ves.

Al
so,t
hedutiesowedbytwocontr
act
ingpart
iestowardsanotherar
efrequent
lynotdut
ies
whi
chtheyexpressl
yagr
eeduponbutobl
igat
ionswhichthelawappli
es.

Conver
sely,
someduti
esintor tcanbev ar
iedbyagr
eement,f
orexample,
theduti
esowedbythe
occupi
erofpremi
sestohi
sv isit
ors;andli
abil
i
tyi
ntortcanbeexcl
udedal
toget
herbyconsent
(t
hedoctr
ineofvol
ent
inonfitinjur
ia.

Whenawr ongar i
sesexclusivelyfrom abreachofagreementbet weenpar ti
es,thent hewrongis
notat ortbutabr eachofcont ract,ort
rust,orotherl
egalorequitableobli
gati
onast hecasemay
be.Ont heot herhand, i
ftherelati
onshipoft heplai
nti
ffandthedef endanti
ssucht hatadutyof
car eari
sesirrespecti
veofcont ractandawr ongisdone,andthedef endantisnegligent,
thenthe
wr ongisof t
enat orteventhoughi tmayal sobeacr ime.Inotherwor ds,i
fthelawi mposesa
dut yonaper sont otakecare,sot hathisconductdoesnotinjurehi snei
ghbour,iftheperson
fail
st oexercisereasonablecare,thewr ongt hatmayresul
tisoftenat ort
,event houghitmay
alsobeacr i
meorot herciv
ilwrong.

This,
inKel
l
yV.Metropoli
tanRail
wayCo.(1895)1Q.B.944CA.,t
heplaint
if
fsuedthedefendant
rai
l
waycompanyforpersonalinj
uri
eshesuff
eredduetothenegl
igenceoftheser
vantsofthe
companywhil
ehewast ravel
i
ngont her
ail
way.Thecourthel
dthatthecasewasfoundedupon
tor
tandnotcont
ract
,al
thought
het
ortoccur
redasar
esul
tofacont
ractt
ocar
ryhi
m asa
passenger
.

Ont heot
herhand,whereadamageispurel
ycontr
act
ual
,thenanybreachofagreement
betweenthepart
iescanonlyberemedi
edbyacl
aimforbreachofcontr
act.Thi
sviewwas
aff
irmedbytheSupremeCour ti
nQuoVadisHotel
LtdV.Nigeri
aMarineServi
cesLtd.
(1992)6
NWLRPt .250,p.
653atp.664SC.

However,t
herearesomear easofoverl
apbetweencontractandtort
.Forinst
ance,avict
im of
f
raudul
entmisrepresent
ati
onincontr
actmaysuef orthetortofdecei
t,andavict
im ofnegl
igent
misr
epresent
ati
onmaysuef ort
hetortofnegl
igence.

Tor
tandTr
ust

Tortandtrustareci
vill
aws.At rustari
sesinanysit
uationwhereoneormor eper
sonshold
proper
tyforthebenefi
tofanot herpersonorobject
s.However,thereisli
tt
leornodi
ffer
ence
betweenthelegalri
ghtsandliabil
it
iesoftortandtr
ust.Theonl
yr ealdif
fer
enceismainl
ythatof
hi
story;
thatthelawoftortaroseordev el
opedf r
om commonl aw, whil
stthelawoftr
ustgrew
fr
om thedoct r
ineofequit
yintheCour tofChancery.

I
notherwords,theremediesoftortaremai
nlybasedonl
aw, whil
stt
heremediesoftr
ustwere
or
igi
nal
lyequit
ableanddiscreti
onary,
alt
houghmanyremediesarenowlegal
orstatut
ory.Bot
h
l
awsoftortandt r
usthavesincethenbeendevel
opedbystatut
oryenact
ments.

Tor
tandCr
ime

Themai npurposeofcriminallawistoprotecttheint
erestsoft hepubl
icatl
argebypuni shing
thosefoundguil
tyofcrimes,gener al
l
ybymeansofi mprisonmentorf i
nesandi ti
sthosety pes
ofconductwhichar emostdet ri
mentaltosocietyandtot hepublicwel
far
ewhi charetreatedas
cri
minal.Aconvict
ionforacr i
mei sobtai
nedbymeansofacr i
minalpr
osecut
ion,whichis
usuall
yinst
it
utedbyt heStatethroughtheagencyoft hepolice.

Atortontheot herhand, isapurel

ycivi
lwrongwhi chgivesri
setocivil
proceedi
ngs,thepurpose
ofsuchpr oceedi
ngsbei ngnott opuni
shwr ongdoersfortheprotect
ionofthepubli
catlarge,but
togivetheindivi
dualpl
ai nti
ffcompensati
onforthedamagewhi chhehassuf f
eredasar esul
tof
thedefendant’swrongful conduct
.

Anot
heri
mpor
tantdi
ff
erencebet
weent
ortandcr
imei
nNi
ger
iai
sthatt
heent
ir
ecr
imi
nal
law
hasbeencodifi
edi nt heform oft
heCri
minalCodeofSout
hernNigeri
aandt hePenal Codeof
theNort
hernstates, whereasthelawoft
ortsremai
nsacreat
ureofjudici
alprecedentmodif
ied
hereandther
ebyst atute.

Alsoani mportantdi
sti
ncti
onbetweentortandcrimei st
hat,tosucceedinacr
iminaltri
al,
the
prosecuti
onmustpr oveit
scasebey ondreasonabledoubt.Thesamedoesnotexi sti
ncivil
actionsbecauseinanactionintor
ttheplai
nti
ffneedonlyprov ehi
scaseuponabal anceof
probabil
it
ies.However,whereatorti
salsoacrime, t
hecri
mi nalst
andardofpr
oofisundert he
EvidenceActiswhatisalsorequir
edinthecivi
ltr
ial.

However,sometort
s,par
ti
cul
arl
ytr
espass,
havestr
onghist
ori
calconnecti
onswitht
hecriminal
l
aw.Sot hesameactmaybebot hator
tandacrime,f
orexample,assaul
t,f
alsei
mpri
sonment
anddefamati
onarebothtor
tsandcri
mes(Seesecti
ons252,365,373-381oftheCr
iminalCode
andsecti
ons263,264and391ofthePenalCode)
.

THERULEI
NSMI
THV.SELWYN

Thecommonl awr uleinSmi t

hv .Selwy nstatesthatwher eaci vi
lwr ongisalsoacr i
me,
prosecutionoft hecr iminalaspectmustbei nit
iated,orreasonsf ordefaultofpr osecuti
ongiven,
beforeanyact ionf i
ledbyt heplaintif
fcanbehear d.Thus, i
twast heposi t
iont hatwher eatort
wasal soacr i
me, thef i
l
ingofcr iminalproceedingsagainstthewr ongdoer,precededt hefil
i
ngof
acivilsui
tbyt heaggr i
evedpar t
y .Thisisknownast heruleinSmi t
hv .Sel
wy n.Whent herul
ein
Smithv .Selwynwasnotobser v ed,thecivi
lactionbyt heplainti
ffcouldnotpr oceedandi twas
boundt of ai
lasl ongast hedefendanthadnotbeenpr osecut edorar easonabl eexcusegiven
forthelackofpr osecut ion.

Except
iont
otheRul
einSmi
thv
.Sel
wyn

Theri
ghtofanaggri
evedpar
tyt
osuei ntor
tisnotaff
ected,oncet
hemat
terwasreport
edtothe
pol
iceandthepol
i
ceintheexer
ciseofthei
rdi
scret
iondecidenott
opr
esscri
minalchar
ges.

Thiswast hesituati
oni nNwankwav .Ajaegbu(1978)2LRN230, wher etheplaintif
freportedan
assault.Thepol icedidnotbr i
ngcr iminalproceedings.Thepl aintif
fthenbroughtci v i
lacti
on
claimingdamagesf orassaultandbat tery.Thedefencecont endedt hatthecivi
l acti
oncoul dnot
proceedascr i
mi nalchargeshadnotbeenf il
edbyt hepol i
ce.Thecour theldthattheci vi
lacti
on
wasnotcaughtbyt her ul
ei nSmi t
hv .Selwy nwhichr equi
redt hatwher eacasedi sclosesa
felony,t
heci vil
act i
onshoul dbest ayedunt il
cri
minal proceedingswer econcluded.Thepl ainti
ff
hav i
ngr eport
edt heassaul ttothepol i
ce,whosedut yitwastopr osecute,i
fthepol iceintheir
discreti
onf ai
ledt opresschar ges,i
twasnott hefaultofthepl ainti
ff.Hewasf r
eet oi ni
ti
atecivi
l
pr
oceedi
ngsf
orr
emedy
.

ABOLI
TIONOFTHERULEI
NSMI
THV.SELWYN

Therulei
nSmi
thv
.Sel
wynwhi
chhasbeenabol
i
shedi
nBr
it
aini
sal
sonol
ongerappl
i
cabl
ein
Niger
ia.

Theappl
icabi
l
ityoft
her ul
einSmithv.SelwyninNigeriawasconsi
deredbyt heCourtofAppeal
i
nthecaseofVerit
asInsuranceCo.Ltd.V.Cit
iTrustI
nv est
mentsLtd.(1993)3NWLRPt .281,P.
349at365CA.whereitheldthati
nviewoft heprovi
sionsoftheNigeri
anConsti
tut
ion,Cri
minal
CodeActandtheInter
pret
ationAct
,therulenolongerappli
esinNigeri
a.

CLASSI
FICATI
ONOFTORTS

Tor
tcanbecl
assi
fi
edi
ntot
hef
oll
owi
ng:

Per
sonal
Int
erest
s

I
nter
fer
encewi
thj
udi
cial
process

Pr
oper
tyi
nter
est
s

I
nter
esti
nreput
ati
on

Economi
cint
erest
s

I
nter
fer
encewi
thr
elat
ionshi
ps;
and

Mi
scel
l
aneousi
nter
est

1.
Tor
tsPr
otect
ingPer
sonal
Int
erest
s

Thetortsthatprot
ectaper son,orprohi
bittrespasstopersonincludethetort
softrespass,such
as,assaul
t,batt
ery,f
alseimprisonment,mal i
ciousprosecut
ion,theRuleinRylandsV.Fletcher
,
negli
gence,occupi
er’sli
abil
it
y,etc.Thesetortsareconcernedwi thpr
otecti
ngaper sonfrom
bei
ngi nj
uredinthebody .Theyalsoprotectthefreedom,li
bertyanddignit
yofaper sonfrom
bei
ngdeni edbywayofar r
est,fal
seimprisonment ,et
c.

Tor
tsPr
ohi
bit
ingI
nter
fer
encewi
thJudi
cial
Process

Thet
ort
sthatpr
ohi
biti
nter
fer
encewi
thj
udi
cial
processi
ncl
udemal
i
ciouspr
osecut
ion.Thi
stor
t
ai
mst
opr
otectper
sonsagai
nstcr
imi
nal
prosecut
ionwi
thoutl
awf
ulexcuse.

2.
Tor
tsPr
otect
ingPr
oper
tyI
nter
est
s

Thet ort
st hatprotecti
nterestsinpr
opertyi
ncl
udet r
espasst ochattel,t
respasst
oland,
nuisance,theRul einRyl
andsV.Fl et
cher,negl
i
genceandi nterestsinintel
lect
ual
proper
ty,
such
as,copyright,passingoff,
injuri
ousfal
sehood,pat
ents,t
rademar k,etc.Thesetor
tsprot
ectthe
propriet
aryinterestsofaper son.

3.
Tor
tsPr
otect
ingI
nter
est
sinReput
ati
on

Thetortthatprotectsthereput
ati
onofaper soni sthetortofdefamat
ion.Thel
awof
defamat i
onwhichi sdivi
dedint
olibelandslanderprotectsaperson’
srightt
ohisgood
reput
ation.I
tdealswi t
hwr ongstoreputat
ion.Defamat i
oni sal
soacrime.Incr
imi
nall
aw,
defamat i
onconsistsofslanderandli
bel.Howev er,
ifaper sondoesnothaveagoodreput
ati
on,
thenthereisnothingforthelawtoprotectasthecasemaybe.

4.
Tor
tsPr
otect
ingEconomi
cInt
erest
s

Thet or
tswhi chprotecteconomi cinter
estsincl
ude;vi
car i
ousliabi
li
ty,deceit
, passingoff,
i
nterfer
encewi thcont ract
ual r
elati
onsandi nducingbreachofcont ract,maliciousorinjur
ious
fal
sehood, conspir
acy ,int
imidati
on, occupi
er’sl
iabi
li
ty,etc.Thesetortsprotectt heeconomi c
i
nterestsofaper son, suchaseconomi crelati
onsandt radingint
erests.Theypr otecttherightof
apersont obef r
eef rom financi
al oreconomi charm.

5.
Tor
tsPr
ohi
bit
ingI
nter
fer
encewi
thRel
ati
onshi
ps

Thet or
tswhichprotectrel
ati
onshipbetweenoneper sonandanot herpersoninclude,
i
nterfer
encewi t
hcontractualrel
ati
ons,
enticementandhar bouring,etc.Ontheot herhand,
the
l
awoft ortcaresabouteconomi candcontractualrel
ationships.Forinstance,
thel awoftort
protect
sonecont r
actingpartyfr
om beingdeni edt
heser viceoft heothercontracti
ngparty
throughinducementbyat hir
dpar t
ytobreakt heagreement .Seet hecaseofLuml eyV.Gye
(1853)118ER749, 1083andBr i
ti
shMot ortradeAssoV.Sal vadoriSal
vadori(
1949)Ch.556.

Thetortsofenticementandhar bouri
ngareoldcommonl awt or
tswhichprot
ectthe
matrimonialri
ghtsofmar ri
edpersons;f
orinst
ancet heri
ghtofonespousenott obedeniedthe
consortoftheot herspousebyat hi
rdpart
y.Alt
hough,enticementandharbouri
ngarev al
i
dtort
s
i
nNi geri
a,theyhav ebeenabol
ishedinEngland.(Seesecti
on2( 9)oft
heAdmi ni
strat
ionof
Just
iceAct
,Uni
tedKi
ngdom;
andt
hecaseofBestV.Samuel
Fox&Co.(
1952)2Al
lER394.
)

Fur
ther
mor
e,i
nthesemoderndays,
nobodywil
lwanttosuef
ort
heset
ort
sbecauset
heywant
tor
elat
ewi
tht
heirspousef
reel
yandnotbyf
orceoflaw.

7Tor
tsPr
otect
ingMi
scel
l
aneousI
nter
est
s

Thisgroupoftor
tscov
ersot
hermul
ti
far
iousandl
esscommoni
nter
est
swhi
char
epr
otect
edby
thelawoftor
ts.

TRESPASSTOPERSON

Thi
sisanyi nt
enti
onali
nter
fer
encewit
hthebodyofanot
herper
sonorhi
sli
ber
ty.I
tmayconsi
st
ofassaul
t,batt
eryandfal
seimpri
sonment
.

ASSAULT

Accordi
ngt oGi
lbertKodil
inye,
“assaulti
sanyactwhi chputstheplaint
if
finfearthatbat
ter
yis
abouttobecommi t
tedagainsthim.”.I
notherwords,iti
sthethreat
eningtoharm orapplyfor
ce
toanotherper
sonwi ththepresentabil
it
ytocarr
youtt hethreat
.Exampl esofassaulti
ncl
ude:
thr
eateni
ngaper sonwithakni f
e,brokenbott
le,etc.
seeRvstGeor ge

ELEMENTSOFASSAULT

Theel
ement
sapl
aint
if
fneedst
opr
ovet
osucceedi
nacl
aim ofassaul
tar
e:

Thatt
her
ewast
hreatt
oappl
yfor
ce:

Thatt
heactwi
l
lputar
easonabl
eper
soni
nfearorbat
ter
y

Here,i
tisnotnecessar
ytoprovet
hattheplai
nti
ffwasact
ual
lyputi
nfear
.Whatneedst
obe
pr
ov edi
sthatitwasreasonabl
etoexpectanimmediat
ebatt
ery.

*
Thatt
her
ewasaThr
eatt
oAppl
yFor
ce:

Therecanbeassaul twithoutbat ter

y.Inassaultitisnotnecessar ytoprovet hatthepl
ainti
ffwas
actuall
yputi nf earorexperiencedf ear.Whatneedst obepr ovedisthatitwasr easonableforthe
plai
ntifftoexpecti mmedi atebat ter
y.Asagener alprincipl
e,point
inganunl oadedgunorev ena
model ,orimi t
ationgunataper sonwhodoesnot knowi tisunloadedort hatitisamodel gun
andt hereforehar mless,isanassaul t.Thus,i
nRvSt .George( 1840)173ER921, thedefendant
pointedagunheknewt obeunl oadedatt heplaintif
fwhodi dnotknowt hatitwasunl oaded,at
suchadi stancet hatthecompl ainantcouldhav ebeenhur tifthegunwasf ir
ed.Onacl ai
mf or
assaultthecour theld:t
hattherewasanassaul t
, event hought hegunwasunl oaded,because
t
hecompl
ainantwasputi
nfearofbei
ngshot
.Seeal
soLogdonvDPP(
1976)Cr
im LR121.

*
Thatt
heActwi
l
lputaReasonabl
eMani
nFearofBat
ter
y:

Also,forassaulttobecommi tt
ed, theactofthedef endantcompl ai
nedaboutmustbesuchthat
wouldputar easonabl emani nfeart hatforceisaboutt obeappliedtohim.Theactmustputa
reasonablemani nfearofviol
ence.Thi stestisanobj ecti
vetestanditi
snotsubject
ivet
oany
parti
cularpl
aintif
falone.Therefore, wher
et hethreatwouldnotputar easonabl
epersonint
he
shoesoft heplainti
ffinfearofviolence,t
het ortofassaultisnotcommi t
ted.

Howev er,
themer efactthattheplai
nti
ffwhowasthreat
enedwithbatteryisabravepersonand
wasnotf ri
ghtenedbythet hr
eat,wil
lnotbart
heplai
nti
fffr
om successfull
ycl
aimingdamages
forassault
,aslongast heall
egedactofassaultwoul
dmakear easonabl emanorr easonabl
e
personinhisshoest obeaf r
aidofbatt
ery.

I
nHurstvPictur
eTheatresLtd(1915)1KB1CA,t
heplai
ntif
fpaidforadmissi
ontothe
def
endant
’stheat
re.Thedefendantsbel
i
evi
ngt
hatthepl
aint
iffhadenter
edwithout

paymentaskedtheplai
nti
fft
oleav
e.Hewasnotafr
aidandrefusedt
oleaveandwasf
orci
bly
ej
ected.Hesuedfordamages.Thecour
thel
dthatt
hedefendantswerel
iabl
efor

assaul
tandf
alsei
mpr
isonment
.

BATTERY

Bat
ter
yistheint
entionalappli
cationofforcetoanotherper
son,wi
thoutlawf
uljusti
fi
cati
on,
howeversl
i
ght.Thisincl
udesst r
ikingortouchi
ngaper soni
narude, angr
yorrevengeful
manner
.
Theel
ement si
nclude:appli
cati
onoff orceandintent
iontoappl
yforce.

InPursellv.Horn(1838)112ER966, t
hedefendantthr
ewwaterontheplai
nti
ff
,held:i
twasa
batt
ery.Also,inLeonv .Met.Poli
ceCommr( 1986)1CL318, t
heplai
nti
ffwaswr ongf
ull
y
suspectedf orcar
ryingdrugs.Thepoli
cepull
edhim offabus,
punchedandkickedhim.The
courtheldthattherewasbat ter
yofthepl
ainti
ff
.

FALSEI
MPRI
SONMENT

Thi
sinv
olv
est
otal
rest
rai
ntofmov
ementf
orhowev
ershor
tat
ime.

Thepurposeoft
hetor
toffal
sei
mpr
isonmentist
oprot
ectt
heri
ghttopersonall
i
ber
tyandr
ight
tof
reedom ofmovement
.Thi
swast
hepositi
onofthel
awinBi
rdv.Jones(1845)7QB742.
 TRESSPASSTOLAND

Thi
sisanunl
awf
ulent
ryi
ntol
andi
npossessi
onoft
hepl
aint
if
f.

Tor
toft
respasst
olandcanbecommi
tt
edby

Byunaut
hor
izedent
ryi
ntot
hel
and

Abuseofr
ightofent
ry

Pl
aci
nganobj
ectupont
hel
and

Whenther
ear
etwopar
ti
esclai
mingpossessionofal
and,i
tiswhohast
it
let
othel
andt
hat
woul
dbedeemedi
npossessi
onofit
.SeeOl agunj
uV.Yahaya

Also,at
respassercaninst
it
uteanact
iononanot
hert
respasserbutnotagai
nstt
heri
ght
ful
o
nowneroftheland.SeethecaseofUgoji
V.Onwu,Sol
elbonehLtdV.Ay odel
e,AmakaV.
Ebief
una

I
tiswort
htonotet
hatt
ortoft
respassi
sact
ionabl
epersay
.Seet
hecaseofSt
erl
i
ngCi
vi
l
Engi
neer
ingLt
dV.AmbassadorMahmoudYahay a

CONTI
NIUI
NGTRESPASSI
NG

Thissit
uat
ionmayar i
sewher
eonewrongf
ull
yoccupi
esapieceofl
andandpl
acesanobj
ecton
thelandwhichcont
inuest
oli
ether
e.Seet
hecaseofLaj
ideV.Oyel
aran

THESCOPEOFTRESPASSTOLAND

Inowner shi
pofland,theowneroft hel
andi
spresumedtoownev er
ythi
ngtotheeff
use.Thi
sis
expressedintheLatinmaxim“ Cur
usestsol
um ei
suestusqueadcoel um etadi
nfer
os”ie”he
whoownst helandpossesestheskyabovei
ttothehehighestheavensandtotheeart
h
beneathi tt
othegreatestdept
h.”

Theimpli
cat
ionofthisi
sthatanyunaut
hori
sedint
erf
erencewitht
hesubsoi
loft
hel
andorany
vi
olat
ionoft
heairspaceaboveyourl
andistr
espasstoland.Seet
hecaseofTor
bet
tV.Hi
ll

Howev er,iti
snotev eryti
met hatint
erventi
onwhichhappensi ntheair
spaceamountto
trespass.Therefore,i
thasbeenhel dthattheri
ghtofanoccupi eri
ntheair
spaceabovehisl
and
extendonl yt
osuchahei ghtasisnecessar yf
ortheordinar
yuseandenj oymentofsameand
thebuildi
ngst hereon.Theposi t
ionofthelawher ei
sthatnot r
espassiscommi t
tedwherean
aircr
aftfl
iesatahei ghtofseveralhundredfeetabov
et helandinpossessi
onoftheplai
nti
ff
.See
t
hecaseofBer
nst
einV.Sky
viewsandGener
alLt
d.Al
so,seeSect
ion49ofCi
vi
lAv
iat
ionAct
.

I
nt hecaseofJonesV.Chapman, thecour tobservedasfol
lows:“
iftherearetwoper sonsi
na
fi
eld,eachasser
ti
ngthatthefi
eldishis,andeachdoi ngsomeacti ntheassertionoftheri
ghtof
possession,
andifthequesti
onis,whi chofthoset woi
sinactualpossession.Ianswerthe
personwhohast heti
tl
eisinactualpossession,andtheotheri
sat respasser.
”

TRESPASSBYRELATI
ON

Underthisdoctr
ine,
apersonwhohasar i
ghttoimmedi
atepossessionandwhoent erst
heland
pursuanttotheexer
ciseofthatr
ighti
slegal
lydeemedt
ohav ebeeni npossessi
onfrom t
he
ti
meofaccr ualofri
ghtofentr
y.Consequent
ly,
hecansueforanytrespasscommi t
tedduri
ng
theperi
odhewasoutofpossessi on.

TRESPASSABI
NITI
O

Thisisasit
uationwhereapersonabusesanauthori
tygi
v enbyl
awtodosomethi
ngthenhe
becomesat respasserfr
om t
hemomentheent eredthelandandnotwhent
heabuseof
authori
tyi
scommi t
ted.Seet
hesixcar
penter
’scase(1610)77ERp.695.

Also,notethedevelopmentofthedoctr
inei
n*El
iasV.Pasmore*wheret
hecour
theldthat
parti
alabuseofauthori
tygivenbyl
awdoesnotrenderever
ythi
ngunderi
tunl
awf
ul.Seealso
*Chickfashi
ons(westWal es)V.Jones*

REMEDI
ESFORTRESPASSTOLAND

Theremedi
esav
ail
abl
efort
respasst
olandcoul
dei
therbej
udi
cial
remedi
esand/ext
raj
udi
cial
remedi
es.

Thejudi
cial
remediesavail
abl
eincl
udesDamagesandI
njuncti
onwhil
eext
raj
udici
alr
emedi
es
avai
l
ablefortr
espasstolandi
sf or
cibl
eej
ect
mentanddi
stressdamagesf
easant.

TRESPASSTOCHATTEL

Thewor d“tor
t”means“wrong”.Ator
tisanunjust
if
iableint
erf
erencewitht
her ightofanother
person.I
tisacivi
lwrongwhichseekstoprot
ecttherightofpersonsandprohibitst
heirbeen
i
nterfer
edwi t
haswellastoprovider
emedyforcivi
lwr ongsuff
eredbyindi
vidualsasar esul
tof
suchi
nter
fer
ence.

Thepur poseoft
helawoftorti
stopr otectpr
oprietaryri
ght
,pr
ohibi
twrongsandtoprov
ide
remediesinfor
m ofawardofdamageswhenat ortisalr
eadycommitt
ed.Thelawoftor
t
ther
eforeenfor
cesri
ght
sandl i
abil
i
ties,provi
desr emediesi
nthedif
fer
entareascov
eredbythe
l
awoft ortandoneofsuchareaistrespasstochat tel
.

Theword“chat
tel
”isdefi
nedasanymov ableori
mmovabl
epropert
yorthingwhichi
scapabl
e
ofbei
ngowned,possessedorcont
rol
led.Anyunl
awful
andint
enti
onal
interf
erencewi
thanot
her
per
son’senj
oymentofhisper
sonalpr
opertyamount
stochatt
el.

Trespasst
ochat
tel
isoneoft
het
ortt
hatpr
otect
sint
eresti
npr
oper
tyorpr
opr
iet
aryr
ightofa
person.

Thetortoftr
espasstochat
telprot
ect
sallgoodsandpersonalpr
opertyofapersonwhohas
ti
tl
etosuchgoodsorwhoi sinpossessi
onofsuchgoodsoraper sonwhohasi mmediat
e
possessi
onagainstmeddli
ng,damage,destr
ucti
on,et
cbypr ohi
bit
ingal
lint
erf
erencewi
thout
l
egaljust
if
icat
ion.

Inanacti
onfortrespasstochat
tel
,theplai
nti
ffhast
oshowthatheei
therhasact
ualor
const
ruct
ivepossessionatthet
imeoft hetr
espassandt
hatther
ewasanunauthori
zedor
unl
awfuli
nter
ferencewithsuchpropert
y.

Thetestoftr
espasst
ochatteli
sdesi
gnedt
oprotectt
herightt
oone’
schattel
,pr
otectthe
physi
calcondi
ti
onofthechatt
elaswel
lasprot
ecti
ngthechatt
elf
rom anyf
orm ofunlawf
ul
i
nterf
erence.

Inordertomai
ntai
nanactioni
ntr
espasstochattel
,oneoft
het hi
ngsaplaint
if
fmustpr ov
eis
thathehaspossessi
onasatthet
imeoftrespassandasagener alr
ule,i
norderfort
respassto
chattel
tobeacti
onabl
e,t
heactmusthavebeendonei nt
ent
ionall
yandinsomecases
negli
gentl
yandinsuchawayastodepri
vetheownerorpossessorper manent
lyofhi
schat t
el.

Theremediesfort
respasst
ochatteli
ncl
udespaymentofdamages,repl
acementofthechatt
el,
repai
rofthedamageandpay mentofthemarketpr
iceoft
hechat
telorsomeotherappropr
iat
e
remedies.

CONVERSI
ON

Thisisani nt
erf
erence,possessionordisposessionofthepropert
yofanotherasifi
tisone’
s
own.I tisanactofwi l
fulint
erferencewi
thoutlegalj
usti
fi
cati
onwi t
hanychattel
inanymanner
thati
si nconsi
stentwit
ht herightofanotherwherebythatpersoni
sdepri
vedoftheuseofhis
property.

I
nthecaseofconv
ersi
on,t
heconductoft
hedef
endantmustbesucht
hatdepr
ivest
geowner
oft
hechat
tel
orsucht
hatamount
stoadeni
aloradi
sput
eint
het
it
leoft
heowner
.

Al
so,
thepl
aint
if
fneednotbei
nact
ual
possessi
onoft
hepr
oper
tyatt
het
imeofi
nter
fer
ence.

*
TheFi
nderOfALostPr
oper
ty

Accordi
ngtothegeneralrule,t
hefinderofachat
telacqui
resnor
ightoveri
t,unlessithasbeen
abandonedorlostandhet akesiti
ntohercareorcontr
oli
nwhichheacquirestgerighttokeep
i
tagainstal
lpersonsexceptthetrueowneroranyonewhocanasser tapri
orri
ghttokeept he
chatt
el.

Thefi
nderofalostpropertyhasagoodti
tl
eandhasar i
ghtofinterestt
okeepitagainstal
l
per
sonsexcepttotherightful
ownerofapropertyorhisagent.Howev er,i
fthefi
nderisanagent
andfi
ndsthepropert
yint hecour
seofhisbusiness,accordi
ngt othelawhef i
ndssuchachattel
onbehal
fofhisemploy erwhobylawacquirestheri
ghtofaf inder.

Thegeneralrul
eoflawi sthatapersonwhohast hefi
nder’sri
ghtov
erapr
opert
yhasan
obl
igati
oninlawt otakereasonabl
estepst
otracetherightful
ownerofal
ostpr
oper
tybef
orehe
canlawful
lyexerci
set geri
ghtofanowneroverthelostpropert
y.

Def
encesf
orconv
ersi
oni
ncl
udest
hef
oll
owi
ng:

-
Abet
tert
it
leofat
hir
dpar
ty

-
Asubsi
sti
ngl
i
enorbai
l
ment

-
Limi
tat
ionoft
ime,
,et
c

DETI
NUE

Thisisthewr ongful
detent
ionorretent
ionofachattelwherebyaper sonwhoi senti
tl
edtoitis
deniedpossessionoruseofit.Anyonewhowr ongf
ull
ytakes,detainsorretai
nsachatteland
aft
erapr operdemandf ori
trefusesorfai
lstoretur
nittotheclaimantmaybesuedi ndet
inue.
Tosuccessf ull
ymaintai
nanact i
onindeti
nue,hemusthav etit
leorr i
ghttoimmediate
possessionandt heremusthavebeenunj ust
if
iabl
efai
lureorrefusaltodeli
verthechat
tel
t ohi
m.

NEGLI
GENCE

Negli
genceintortsmeansomi ssiontodosomet hi
ngwhichar easonabl
emanwoul ddoordo
somethingwhichar easonabl
emanwoul dn’
tdo.Negli
genceisthebreachofalegaldut
ytotake
carewhichresulti
ndamageunder ser
vedbythedefendanttotheplai
nti
ff
.Thi
sunlike
i
ntenti
onaltor
twher ethedefendantdesi
redtheconsequences.Hereiti
sundeserveddamage
totheplai
nti
ff.
*
DUTYOFCARE

Thedev
elopmentoft
histor
tiscategori
zedi
nto3phases.Thef
ir
stphasewaswhennegl
i
gence
wasmerelyacomponentofothert
orts.

ThesecondphasewhenNegl
igencedevelopi
ntoact
ionont
hecasesandt
hissawt
he
begi
nni
ngofnegli
genceasanindependencet
ort.

Thet
hir
dphasewasfr
om thedeci
sionofDonoghuevStephenson(
1932)Ap562.I
nthi
scase,
Negl
i
gencewasful
l
yrecogni
zedasanindependentt
ortcapabl
eofext
ensi
onint
onewcategor
y.

TOESTABLI
SHNEGLI
GENCETHEPLAI
NTI
FFMUSTPROOFTHREETHI
NGS;

*
Hemustpr
ovet
heexi
stenceofdut
yofcar
e

*
Hemustpr
ooft
hebr
eachoft
hatdut
yofcar
e

*
Hemustpr
oofdamager
esul
ti
ngf
rom t
hebr
each.

Whet
heral
egal
dut
yexi
stsornotdependonr
easonabl
efor
ceabi
l
ityoft
hei
njur
y.

Thist estwaspr opoundedbyLor dAtki

ninDonohuevSt ephenson: Lor dAtki
nsai d“Youmust
taker easonablecaretoav oidactsoromi ssi
onwhi chy oucanr easonabl yforeseewoul dbe
l
ikelyt oinj
ureyourneighborandast owhoi syournei ghbor,LordAt kinsaid“yournei ghborin
Lawi ncludethoseper sonswhoar esocloselyanddi rectl
yaffectedbyy ouracts, t
hatyouought
reasonabl ytohavethem i ncontemplat
ionasbei ngsoaf f
ectedwheny ouaredi recti
ngy our
mi ndt otheactofomi ssionthatarecall
edt oquestion”.Soy ournei ghbordoesnotmeant hose
closerornear esttoyoubutt hosewhoy ouf oreseelikelytobeaf fectedbycar elessnessony our
par t
.

InDonoghuevSt ephenson(19832)AP532amanuf acturerofGi ngerBeersol

dhi spr oductt
oa
ret
ail
er,theret
ailerresoldi
ttoaladywhoboughti tf
oraf ri
endofher swhowast heplaint
if
fin
thecase.Thepl ainti
ffhadconsumemostoft hegingerbeerwhenshenot icedt hedecomposed
remainsofasnai l i
nthebeer.Shebecamesosi ckthatshehadt obehospital
izedandsuedt he
manuf actur
erfordamagesi nrespectofheri
njury
.Themanuf acturercl
aimedt hattherewasno
contr
act ual
rel
ationshipbetweenitandtheconsumerandf orthatreasontheplainti
ffisnot
enti
tl
edt oanact i
on.

*
TheLi
kel
i
hoodofHar
m

Thegr
eat
ert
hel
i
kel
i
hoodt
hatt
hedef
endantconduct
swi
l
lcausehar
m,t
hegr
eat
ert
heamount
ofcauti
onrequi
redofhi
m.I nLordWr i
ght
’swor
dsinNorthwest
ernUti
li
ti
esLtdvLondon
GuaranteeandAcci
dentCo.Ltd(1936)A108atP.126.“
Thedegreeofcarewhi
chtheduty
i
nvolvesmustbeproport
ionedtothedegr
eeofri
skinvol
vedi
fthedutyofcar
eshouldnotbe
ful
fi
ll
ed.

*
TheSer
iousnessoft
heI
njur
ythati
sri
sked

Thegr avit
yoft heconsequencesi fanaccidentweretooccurmustbet akeni nt
oaccount .The
cl
assicexampl ei sParisV.StepneyBoroughCounci l(1951)AC367: Heret hedefendant
employ edthepl aint
if
fasamechani ci
ntheirmaintenancedepart
ment .Althought heyknewt hat
hehadonl yonegoodey e,
theydidnotpr ovi
dehim withgogglesforhiswor k.Whilehewas
att
empt ingtoremov eapairfr
om underneathav ehicl
e,apieceofmet alfl
ewi ntohisgoodey es
andhewasbl indedi twasheldthatthedefendanthadbeennegl i
gencei nnotpr ovidi
ngthis
part
icularworkmanwi thgoggles,si
ncetheymusthav ebeenawar eofthegr avi
tyofthe
consequencesi fheweretosuf f
eraninjurytohi
sonegoodey e.

Theseriousnessoft heri
skcreatedbythedefendantacti
vit
yandwherethedefendantcouldnot
hasgreatsocialvalues;
hemaybej ust
ifi
edinexposingother
storiskwhi
chwouldnotot her
wise
bejust
ifi
able.Inall
cases,onemustbal ancetheri
skagainsttheendtobeachi
ev edandthe
commer cialandtomakeapr ofitisver
ydiff
erent
lyformthehumanandt osavelifeorl
imb.

*
TheCostandPr
act
icabi
l
ityofMeasur
est
oAv
oidt
heHar
m

Anotherrel
evantquest
ioni
showcost
lyandpract
icabl
eitwoul
dhavebeenf
ort
hedef
endantt
o
havetakenprecauti
onstoel
imi
nat
eormini
mizerisk.I
tisamatt
erof

balancingriskagainstt
hemeasur esnecessar
yt oeli
minateand“ areasonablemanwouldonl y
neglect…….Riskofsmal lmagni t
udei fhehadsomev ali
dconsi der
ableexpensetoeli
minat
et he
ri
sk.InLatinervA. E.
C.Ltd.(1952)2Q.B.701wher ethecourtheldthat:whereafact
oryfl
oor
hadbecomesl ipperyaft
er,andtheoccupiersdideveryt
hingpossibletomaket hefl
oorsaf
ebut
neverthel
essawor kmansl i
ppedoni tandsustainedinj
uri
es,thecourtheldthatt
heoccupier
hadnotseennegl i
gent.Theonl yotherpossi
blestoptheycouldhav etakenwouldhavebeent o
cl
oset hefactory,apositi
onwhi chwi l
lbetoodrasti
c.

STANDARDOFCARE

Negli
genceisconductf
all
i
ngbel
owthest
andardest
abl
ishedfort
heprotect
ionofother
s
agai
nstunreasonabl
eri
skorhar
m.Thi
sstandar
dofconducti
sordinar
il
yprudencewoulddoi
n
theci
rcumstances.
Thegeneral
standardofconductr
equir
edbyLawi sanecessar
ycomplementoft
helegal
conceptof‘
duty
’.Ther
eisnotonlythequest
ion‘
didt
hedefendantoweadutytobe

caref
ul?Butal
sowhatpr ecisel
ywasr equir
edofhimt odi
schargeit
,itisfort hecourtto
deter
mi net
heexistenceofadutyrelati
onshipandtolaydowningener altermst hestandardof
carebywhichtomeasur ethedefendantconduct.Thus,i
fati
ssueist hesuper visi
onofschool
chil
drendur
ingmi ddaybreak,acour
twoul dordi
nari
lybecontentwi
tht hef actthatthedutyof
theschooli
sthatofar easonabl
ycarefulparent
.

BREACHOFADUTY

Foranacti
oninNegli
gencet
osucceed,
itmustbeprov
edthatthedefendanthasbreachedhi
s
dutyofcar
e;inot
herwordst
hathehasnotdonewhatheoughttohavedonei nthewayhe
oughttohavedonei
torhasdonewhatheoughttohavedonenegl
igentl
y.

InWhi t
evBassey( 1966)1NWLR26: amotori
stwasdrivi
ngalongt hestreetonar ainyday.It
waspr ovedthathedidnotspeedandwasnotcar el
ess.Afiv
ey earoldboydashedal ongthe
roadandwasknockeddownbyt hecar.I
twasheldthatt
hemot oristhadadut yofcareallr
ight
alongahi ghwaypart
icul
arl
yonar aini
ngdaynottospeedandt obemi ndf ulofotherroadusers.
Buti nt
hisparti
cul
arcase,si
ncehehaddonewhatwasexpect edofhi m undert he
circumstanceshehadnotbr eachthedut
y.Adefendantwouldbreachadut yifheactedbelow

THESTANDARDOFAREASONABLEMAN.

Hav ingest
ablishedt hatadut yofcareisbythedefendanttot heplainti
ffinpar t
icul
ar
circumstances;thenexti ngredi
enttodetermineistodiscoverwhet hert hedefendantisin
breachoft hatdut y.Thestandardofcareexpectedofapar t
iculardef endantisusuallysetby
l
awandi tisast andardoft hereasonablemani.e.anobject
ivet est
.In“ str
eetonTor ts”
,iti
s
i
llustrat
edthat,“ifAowesBadut yofcare,Amustat t
ainast andardofar easonablepersoni.
e.
reasonableman” .However ,i
ndrivi
ngatreasonablestandar
dofadef endant,thecourtmustbe
guidedbyt hefollowingfactors;

(1)Magnitudeoft heRisk.Thisdealswi t
ht helikelihoodthatthei njurywoul
doccurandt he
seri
ousoft heinjuryt
hatisrisked.Thegr eaterofr isktothepl ai
ntiff,
meansgreaterprecauti
ons
thannormal thatmustbet akenbyt hedef endant .InPARI SV.STEPHYBOUROUGHCounci l
1951
AC367, theplainti
ffwhohadoneey ewasempl oy edasamechani cinthedefendant
’sgarage.
Partofhisjobincludeswelding.Itwasnotnor mal toputongoggl einsuchajob.Inthecauseof
hisworkapi eceofmet alfl
ewi ntotheplaintif
f’
sey es,asar esulthebecomescompl etel
ybli
nd.
Het hensuedt hedefendant.Thedef endantwashel dli
able.Althoughhewoul dnothav ebeen
l
iabletoaper sonwi t
hnormal sight.
(2)TheSki l
ltheDef endantPossesorHol dsHimsel foutassuch.Wher eaper sonposses
specialskil
lorposehi msel faspossessingorhol di
ngsuchski l
l
si tshallbehisdutytoexercise
suchcar easanor mal ski
llf
ulmemberofhi str
adeorpr ofession,hei sreasonablyexpect
edt o
exercise.Wher esuchaski ll
fulpersonisall
egedt ohavecommi ttednegl i
gence,insoexercising
suchcar e,hisperformanceshal lbejudgedint henormal st
andar d,reasonablyexpectedofan
ordinarypersonwi threquisit
eskil
l i
nasimi l
arprofessi
onorbusi ness.Themaxi mi simperatia
culpasadnumer atiu.Seesect i
on24oft het or
tlawofAnambr ast ate,r
ule10f ortherul
esof
medi calpr
of essi
onal conductfortheMedi calandDent alPracti
ti
oner srevisededit
ion1995, see
alsoUBALt dVNkeneDi l
i
chukwu199912NWLRpt629pg132.

(3)TheCostorPr acti
cabil
ityofAv oidi
ngtheHar m.Ther iskmustbebal ancedagai nstthe
measur esnecessar ytoeliminat ei
tandt hepracticalmeasur eswhichthedef endantwouldhave
takentoav oidthehar m woul dbetakeni nt
oconsi derat
ion.InLat i
marv.a. e.c.19522QBpg700
and711, af act
oryf l
oorbecamesl i
pper yasar esultoff
lood.Theoccupant soft hefactorydi
d
everyt
hingpossi bl
et ogetridofef fectsofthef l
oor.Nevertheless,t
heplaintiffwasinj
uredand
thensoughtt oestablishthatt heoccupierswoul dhavecloseddownt hef actory.TheHouseof
LordsperLor dDenni ngheldt hatther i
skofinj
ur ycreat
edbyt hesli
pperyf l
oorwasnotsogr eat
astojustif
yt heclosureoft hef act
ory.Thedefendant swer ethusnotheldl iable.

PROOFOFNEGLI
GENCE

Her e,youmustpr ovet hatthebr eachofdut yofcar eisthecauseofdamages.Ther eis

causat i
oni nf actandCausat i
oni nLaw.Youmustdeci det heissueofcausat ioninf actbefore
thatofLaw.Causat i
oni sconcer nedwhet hert hebr eachofdut ywasamat terinfactt hecause
ofthepl ai
nti
ffdamage.Ther emot enessofdamagesi sconcer nedwitht hefactasamat terof
Law; thebr eachofdut yi sthecauseoft hepl ainti
ffsdamage.Thepl aintif
fisunablet oprov e
thatthedef endantbr eachi nactual factcauseshi sdamagehewi ll
fail
.TheCour tappl yt
he“ But
for”test.Ifthepl aint
iffprov ethatbutf orthedef endantnegl igencehisdamagewoundi nghav e
occur r
ed.Hewi l
lsucceedeg.Bar netvChel sea&Kessi gt onHospi t
alManagement( 1969)1OB
428.Int hiscaset hedeceasedcamet ohospi t
alcompl ainingofv omiti
ngaf tertakingsomet ea.
Thenur seondut yphonedt hedoct or.Buti nsteadoft hedoct orcomi nghet oldthedeceasedt o
seehi sowngener alpract i
ti
oner.Lat einthedayhedi ed,itwasf oundt hathediedoff ood
poison.I nanact ionbyt hewi feagainstthehospi talf
ort henegl i
genceoft hedoct or.Itwashel d
thatthedoct orwasact uall
yi nbreachofhi sdut yofcar eandt hatbreachwasnott hecauseof
thedeceaseddeat h.

I
twasar
guedhowever
,thatev
enifthedoct
ort
reat
edhim ef
fect
ivel
yhewoul
dst
il
lhav
edi
ed.
Hewasnotl
i
abl
e.SeealsoCult
hervBedfor
dMotors(
1971)1OB418.

Notet
hatsometi
mestheymaybemor ethanonecause.Wher ethecausescauseddiff
erent
ty
pesofdamageseachpersonwi
llbel
iabl
efortheconsequencesofhisownact .Pr
oblem may
howev
erari
sewherethecausear
emerged.E.g.Par
kervWi l
loughby(1970)A.
C.467.Inthis
caset heplai
ntiffwasinjur
edi nhislegbyt hedefendantnegl igencethatcausedhimt obe
disabledandt heref
oreunabl etomai ntai
nhisformerj ob.Hehast otakeonal owerpaidjob,a
placewher erobbersattackedhi m andshott healreadywoundedl egandthel eghadtobe
amput at
ed.Thishappenedbef oretr
ial
.Thedef endantarguedt hathisnegli
genceact i
onwas
nott hecauseoft heamput ationandt hatthesecondi nj
uryhadobt ai
nedhisowni njur
y.The
cour thadthatthedefendantwasst il
lli
abl
et otheplaint
iffsincetheonlyresultoftherobber
s
actionwast heamput ati
onofanal readydamagedl egandt hereforethedefendantacti
onwas
stil
lthecauseoft heplaint
iffloss.

Moreimpor t
antt hancausati
oninfactiscausationi nl
aw.Itisevi
dencet hatapl ainti
ffcannot
bemadeanswer ableforallt
heconsequencesofhi sacti
onswi t
houtend.Ther emustbeal ine
drawnwithregardst otheconsequencesinwhi cht hedefendantwon’tbetoor emot efor.The
quest
ionofcausat ioninlawisquit
ecompl exandsomet i
mest hecour thadr esortedto
commonsenseandpol icycri
ter
iar
atherthansci enti
fi
ccrit
eri
athecaseoft heMunni tyofwar
tr
ansport(1942)AC127wher eLordWrightsaidt hatCausati
oncanonl ybeunder standast he
maninthest reetwouldunderstandit
.Andt her
ef orethechoiceofther ealoref f
ectivefrom out
ofawhol ecompl exoffactor
smustbemadet oappl ytocommonsenseofst andard.

Itshoul
dbenot edt hatt
hisdoesnoti mplythatthejudgesar etoactasarbitr
arybecausether
e
arecert
ainlai
ddownpr inci
pleswhi chshouldguidethejudgeswhenmaki ngt hei
rdecisi
on.I
n
factwhatthejudgesar esayingisthattheremustbeal i
nkbetweenthedef endant’
sacti
onand
theplai
nti
ffsdamageandsuchal i
nkmustnotbedi st
urbedbyanyot hereventorbytheactofa
3rdparty
.Oncet hereisinter
v enti
onofanewcour setherebymakingthelink,t
hedefendant
ceasestobel i
able.Therearet wocaseswhi chcompet eagainsteachotherwi t
hregardsto
remotenessofdamages.Thef ir
stoneisthedirectconsequences“Best”

establ
i
shedbythecaseofRe-Pol
ems(1921)3KB560t hatcasest
atest
hatthedefendanti
s
l
iablef
oral
ltheconsequenceswhet
herf
oreseeabl
eornotwhichcanbedir
ectl
ytr
acedt ohi
s
act.

Thesecondapplicat
ionistobefoundinthecaseofthewagonmand( 1961)AC388whi chrest
the“Reasonabl
eforesi
ghttest
”.Thatt
extstat
ethatall
consequenceswhi chcoul
dnot
reasonabl
ybeforeseenaretooremotewhetherornotthef
lowdirect
lyfrom thedef
endantacts.

Re-
Pol
emswasdecidedbyt
hehouseofLordsinEngl
andwhi
l
ewagonMandbyPr
ivyCounci
l
.
ButWagonMandhasinf
actov
errul
eRe-Polemis.

RE-
POLEMIScase(1921)
.Int
hiscase,t
hechar
tererofashi
pemployedStevedovet
ooff-
loada
shi
p.Amongthecargoi
ntheshipwereti
nsofBenzinesomeofwhichhadleakeddur
ingt
he
voyageandt hereforealotofpetr
olvaporhascoll
ect
edi ntheholdoftheship.Theaf’sservant
negli
gentlydroppedapl ankontheholdwhichhasleaked.Thiscausedaspar kwhichignit
edt he
Benzines.Andaf irewhichescheweddamaget heship.Thearbit
rat
orbeforewhom t heparti
es
appearedheldinterali
at hatt
hefi
rewascausedbyt hespar kf
rom fal
l
ingplankwhi chcamei nto
contentwithpetrolvapor.Theyal
sofoundthatthesparkit
self

couldnotreasonabl yhavebeenant ici

patedbyt hefalli
ngoftheplankeventhoughsome
damagest otheshi pwasf oreseeable.Despitethefindingsofthearbi
tr
ati
on,thecourthadthe
defendantwasliablebecauseoft hefactthattheplainti
ff’
sdamagewasadi rectresortoft
he
defendant’
snegligenceaction.Thecour tsaidthatdut yofcarewasmet hi
ngandt hatdamage
wasanot herandt hatdif
fer
entt estsapplytobot hi
ssues.

Sev
eralyear
slaterthepr
ivyCounci
lhadt
heopport
unit
ytodeci
deonasimil
ari
ssuei
nthecase
oft
heWagonMl aud.Int
hiscaseacompanyO.T.Lt
dhadchart
eredashi
pknownastheWagon
Mound.Theshipwasanchor edofawhar
f

belongingtoC.Oi lCoyforthepurposetaki
ngf ul
e.Theser
vantofO. T.Lt
dnegli
gent
lyspli
ta
l
argeamountofoi l
onwat erandthi
squicklyspreadtoout
sideoftheLabourandontothewharf
whichbel ongtoM. B.Lt
d,wher esomewi el
dingworkwasbei ngcarr
iedoutonaship.Upon
notici
ngt hepresentofoili
nthewat ert
hemanagerofM. B.Lt dor
deredweddingworktostop
theappr oachi
ngt he

managerofC.Oi lCoyast othesaf et

yofconti
nuingweddingwor ki
nv i
ewof/ Oilonwat eratthe
wharf.C.OilCoyassuredhi mt hattherewasnof earandcoupledwi t
hhisownknowl edget hati
t
i
snotnor mal f
orwat erandoi l
touni t
e.Heorderedwor ktocontinuebutwithprecautions.Some
fewday sl
atertheoilcaughtf i
reandcausedext ensiv
edamaget oM.D.Whar f
.M. S.suedt he
defendantf
ornegl i
gence.Itwasf oundasaf actthatitwasforeseeableforoi
lonwat ert ocatch
fi
re.I
twasal sofoundt hatsomedamageswer ecausedtoM. D.Whar l
f.Thetr
ialCour theldthe
defendantwasliabl
eont hedecisionofre-
polmis.

Thepriv
ycouncil
howev erhel
dthatthedefendantwasnotl i
abl
ebecauseitwasnotreasonably
for
eseeablet
hatsuchadamagewi l
loccur.Thedamagef orfi
rewasnotreasonabl
yforeseeabl
e.
Thepriv
ycouncil
mentionedthattheRE-Poli
miswasnol ongergoodlaw.Andpromptedoutt hat
i
twill
bei l
l
ogi
caltoapplydif
fer
enttest
stot heissueofdutyofcar
eandthatofremotenessof
damage.

Whenthi
stestisappli
editi
sevi
dencethatt
hedi
ff
erenceswil
lonl
ybeliabl
eforsuchdamages
t
hatcanbeforeseen.Thewagonmouldcasehadbeenappl
iedinvar
iouscases.

HughesvLor dAdvocate( 1963)AC838.Amanhol einEdinburgStr

eetwasopenedunder
statutor
ypowersforthepur poseofmagnet i
zi
ngundergroundtel
ephoneequipment.Itwas
cov er
edwithafl
utandi ntheev eni
ng,
leftbytheworkmanunguar dedbutsur
roundedby
war ni
ngparaf
fi
n.an8y earsoldboyenteredthetentandknockedandt ower
edonet hel amp
i
nt othehol
e.Anexplosionoccur r
edamusi nghi
mt ofall
intotheholeandsever
elyburnt.Hel
d:
thattheworkmanwer eabr eachofdutyofcar
etosafe-
guar
dtheboyagai
nstthetypeof
occurrencewhichari
singfr
om aknownsour ceofdanger
.Thel
ampwasr easonabl
yforeseeabl
e
thatsourceofdangeractedmanunpr edi
ctabl
eway.

Dought yvTurnerManuf acturi

ngCoy .(
1964)1QB508.Thedef endantpl
acedov eraheat
treatmentbathcont ainingcov ersodium cyarideasawer ehotmol t
enli
quid.Thedef endant
empl oyeecarelesslydislodgedt hi
scov ersot hati tshower edhisbath.Themol tenl i
quid
exploded,empt iedfrom t hebathanddamagedt hepl ai
ntiffworkmannearly.Al
thoughi twas
foreseeablet
hatdamagebyspl ashingwoul dr equi r
esof tfrom di
slodgi
ngthecov er.Itwasnot
foreseeablewhatanexpl osionwouldensuedHel d:thedef endantwereheldli
abl e,eventhough
thekindofhar m, damagebybur ni
ngwasf oreseeabl e.Theywoul dhavebeenliablef ordamage
byspl ashi
ng;ther i
skofdamagebyexpl osi
onwasnotf oreseeable.

SeeTremainv .Pi
ke( 1969)3A.
E.R1303.Her
ethedamagesuf
fer
edbyt
heplai
nti
ffwas
unf
oreseeable.Theplaint
if
fsuf
fer
edwill
sdi
seasewhi
chwascont
act
edthr
oughratur
ine.The
def
endantftherefor
eescapedli
abil
i
ty.

Ther
eisonear
eawhi chhowev erwasnotef
fect
edbytheWagonMound,t
hatar
eai
sthe“
Eggs
Shel
l
sSkull
sPersonali
ty”i
.e.wher
eapersonsuff
eredanunusual
kind

ofpecul
iarweakness.TheE-
Pol
emiscaseistheonl
yonethatcanappl
y.I
nthiscaset
hecourt
wil
lnotapplyt
hereasonabl
efor
esi
ghttest
.Thismeanst
hatyoutakeyourvi
cti
m asyouf
ind
hi
m.

SeeSmi t
hV.LeechBr ain&Co.( 1962) 2QB405.TheJudgei nthecaseheldthatitwasobv i
ous
thatthePr i
vyCounci l
coul dnothav eintendedtheirdeci
sionint hewagonmoundt oapplytothe
decisioninEggShel lCasesandt hatthisareaisstil
lgovernedbyRe-Poli
misdecision.Herea
Burnwasnegl i
gentlyinfl
ict
edont hepflips.Thi
sdev el
opedi nt
ocancerandki l
ledtheman2
yearslater.I
twasf oundt hattheman’ sl i
pbeforetheburnwasal r
eadyinapre-malgnantstat
e,
butthebur nmer el
ymadet hecancertodev elopquicker
, t
hepfwer enonethel
esshel dl
iabl
e
becauseaccor dingtot helawhemustt akehisvict
im ashef oundhim.

Nov
usCausa

Thepr i
ncipl
estat
esthatthedefendanti
snotbel i
abl
ef ordamagesresul
ti
ngfr
om i
ntervening
factor
.Thehandli
ngofNov aCausaunderthedir
ectconsequencestestl
eadt
othedefinit
ion
beingli
ableforal
lthedir
ectconsequencesofthedefendant’
sacti
onunti
lanewint
ervening
eventbreadsthechairofcausat
ion.

Thehandl i
ngofthenov acausaincludethewagonmoundpossest hequestionwhet
herit
i
nterveningev
entwasf oreseeable,
ifitwas,i
tfol
l
owst hatt
hechairofcausati
oni
snotbroken
andthedfwer estil
lbeli
ableforthedamage.Theeffectofasuccessfulpl
eaofnovacausaisto
renderthedefendantnotli
ablefortheall
egeddamage.
Wherehowev
erthepl
easfai
l,
thedef
endantwi
l
lcont
inuet
obel
i
abl
efort
hei
njur
y.See
St
ansabyvTrowunmi(
1948)2KB48.

I
nWi el
andvCereal
sLordCar pet(
1969)3AllER1006.Thepl
aint
if
fwasi
njur
edbyt he
negl
i
genceofthedefendantasaresul
toftheinj
uryt
hepfhadtowearacoll
aral
ltheti
me

andthismadei tdi
fficul
tforhertoadjusthisspectacle,shehadaf ailandsustai
nedfurt
her
i
njuri
esandsuedt hedff orthisfi
rsti
njury.Thedefendantarguedt hatthefal
lwasani nt
erveni
ng
for
ceforwhi chheshoul dnotbehel dresponsibl
ebutt heConothadt hatthefal
landinj
urywas
att
ri
butetotheor i
ginalnegli
genceofthedfandt hethiswasaf oreseeableconsequenceofthe
for
meri nj
uryandther ef
oretherehasnotbeenani nt
er veni
ngeventbr eaki
ngthechainof
causati
oncont r
ast.

PROOFOFNEGLI
GENCE:
RESI
PSALOQUI
TOR

InScot tvLondonandstKat heri

neCockes( 1855)3HofL596.Acust omoffi
cerwaspassing
throught hedoorofthedefendantwarehousewhen6bagsofsugarfellonhim.Thejudgeof
fi
rstinstancedir
ectedadischargever
dictforthedfonthegr
oundofl
ackofnegl i
gence,t
he
courtofAppeal order
edar etr
ialandi
fwasi nthatcaset
hatt
herul
e“resipsaloqui
torwas
formulated.

TheAppealCourtor
der
edar etr
ial
andi
twasthatcaset
hatt
hemaxi
m orr
uleResI
psal
oqui
tor
wasfor
mulated.Ear
lC.J,
Statedasfol
l
ows:

Ther
emustbereasonabl
eev i
denceofnegl
igencebutwher
ethethingisshownt
obeundert
he
managementoft
heservantandtheacci
dentinsuchasint
heordinary

courseofthi
ngdoesnothappenifthosewhohavethemergi
ngusepropercar
e,i
taf
for
d
reasonabl
eevidencei
ntheabsenceofexpl
anat
ionbythedft
hattheacci
dent

ar
osef
rom t
hewant
sofcar
e.Thest
atementabov
etwopr
obl
em;

Whendoest
hedoct
ri
neappl
i
es

Whati
stheef
fectwheni
tisappl
i
ed

Regardi
ngt hefir
stoneitappearsthat3conditi
onmustbef or
ti
fi
edf orr
esipsaloqui
tortoapply
.
Thefactsrelat
ingtotheaccidentmustnotbeknown, t
her
emustbeamazementofexpl anati
on
oftheacci
dent .Oncetheoftheacci dentar
eknownt henr
esipsaloquit
orf
ailorthi
ngthepf
havetoprov ehiscar
easi ntheordinarycareofnegl
i
gence.SeeBarkwayvSmi thWales
Transpor
tCo.Lt d(1950)1AllER392.
Inthatcasethepfwasi nav ehiclemanagedbythedfwhent henamel ywouldtothewrongside
andf ai
loverandthepfwasi njured.I
twasfoundt hatt
herewasadef ecti
noneoft het
yresand
theyifthedfhadco-operat
edapr opersy
stem ofcheckingv
ehicl
ethatdefectmightwhether
resipsaloqui
torappl
y.TheCour thel
ditt
hattherewasnoneedt hefactsareknown.

DEFENCESTONEGLI
GENCE

Cont
ri
but
oryNegl
i
gence

Thisi
stheconductofthepfwhichfal
lsbel
owwhatareasonablemancouldobserv
ef orhi
snon
safet
y.Whenapfsuesadff ornegli
gence,
thedfwi
l
lacceptnegli
genceatwi
llal
soblamet hepf
forhi
sownfaultandcontentt
hatthepfshoul
dshar
eintheloss.

Inanycasey oucannothol dadfl iableforcont ributorynegl i

gencei ftheblamei sent eri
ngont he
pf.InEv ansVS. B.Bakar e(1974)NWLR78.Theev i
denceasf oundandaccept edbyt hetri
al
j
udgewast hatt hepfwasnegl i
gentlyridinghi smot orcycle,emer gedi ntotheroadandcol l
ided
withthedf ’
sv echicle.Thepfwasent i
relyt oblamef ortheacci dentbutt hetr
ialjudge
err
oneousl yappl i
edt hepr i
ncipl
eofcont ributorynegl i
gence.Thi swashowev eroffsetbythe
courtofappeal .Seeal soOkuwoduVAl li(1957)WRNLR195.Hel d:-thepfwhor estedhisar m
onthewi ndowofhi sv ehi
clewhileitwsi nmot ionwasnotcont ributorynegli
gencewhi l
ethedf
dri
vingnegligent l
ybr ushedt oarm.Theaft ri
edt opleat hatthepfwascont ri
butorynegligence
butthecour trejectedt hiscontenti
onandhel dthedfwhol lyresponsi ble.I
fappear sthatfai
lure
onthepar tofamot or-cycl
istorhispassengert o,wearcr ash-helmeti scontri
butorynegligence
ortheirpartforheadi njuri
es.

Def
enceofConsent

Thisi
mpl iesthatthepl ai
ntif
fbyhisownf r
eewil
landwi ththeful
l appreciat
ionofthedangerhas
absolvedthedef endantfrom li
abil
ity
.Theef f
ectofthisdefencewher eitsucceedmeanst hat
theplaint
iffwil
lnotrecov eranyt
hingatal l
.Theconsentunderthisdef encemustbegent l
e.
Theremustbenopr essureorcollusionofanysorte.g.Economicpr essuemayl eadthepftodo
whathewoul dnormal l
ynotdo.Ther ear esomeriskyjobsundertakenbypeopl ebecauseof
economi cpressure.Suchaper sonwhosuesf orinj
uryasar esul
tofsuchj obwil
lnotbefaced
bythedef anceofv olentinonfi
tinjur
ia.SeeSmithvBaker( 1891)A. C.325.

Incaso,t
hewor kmanwer eworkinginaquarr
y.Acranewascar r
yingheavyst
onesmovingt
o
andf r
oabov ethem andtheyknew.Thestonefell
andinj
uredtheplai
nti
ff
.Inanact
ionagai
nst
thedefendant,
theypleadedvolent
inotf
iti
njuri
abutitf
ail
ed.
DAMAGES

Thisisthethir
dlegofpr oofrequi
redtoestabl
ishnegl
igence.I
fthereisadut yandabreachofi
t
butnoinjuryordamagecanbepr ov
ed,anactioni
nnegligencewil
l f
ail
.Ifther
ei sdamage,i
t
mustbet raceabletothebreach.Theconnectionbet
weent hedefendant’sconductandthe
plai
nti
ff
’sinjur
yraisesaconger i
esofproblemswhichareconv ent
ional
lycanv assedi
ntermsof
remotenessof“ damage”orpr oxi
mat ecause.

Theotherissuei
stowhatextent
,thedefendantshouldhav
etoanswerfortheconsequences
whichhisconducthasact
ual
lyhelpedtoproduce.Theremustbeareasonabl
econnecti
on
bet
weent heharmt hr
eat
enedandt heharm done.

Af
terestabl
ishi
ngthatadut
yofcar
eisowedtohim andther
ewasabr
eachofsame,t
he
pl
ainti
ffmustfur
therest
abl
i
shandprov
ethathesuffer
eddamagewhi
chwasnottoor
emot
eas
aresultoft
hebreach.

Damageconst i
tut
esconsensusinfactandcausati
oninlaw(i
.e.remoteness).Thi
sisknownas
concessi
oninlaw.Thequesti
onofr emotenessari
sesonlyaf
terconcludingthequest
ioni
nfact
.
Theessenceofconcessioni
nl awistoavoidthesi
tuat
ionwherethedef endanti
sli
ablead
i
nfini
tum (
indef
ini
tel
y);
foral
ltheconsequencesofthewrongfulconduct.

I
ncert
aincases,consequencesofthedefendant’
stort
uousconductwoul
dbeconsi deredt
oo
r
emoteifhi
swr ongdoingtoimposeonhimr esponsibi
l
iti
esf
orthoseconsequences.Thecour
t,
t
her
efore,
imposest hecut-
offpoi
ntbeyondwhi chthedamageissaidt
obet ooremote.

Anindependenteventwhi
choccurredaft
erbreachofdut
yandwhi
chcontri
butedtothe
pl
aint
if
f’
sdamagemaybr eakthechainofcausati
on,
soastomakethedefendantnotl
iabl
eto
anydamaget hatoccur
sbeyondthi
spoint.Wherethi
soccur
s,t
heeventi
sv oi
dtobenov us
act
usinterv
enes.

InMonyev .Di
urie(
1970)NMOR62, t
heplainti
ffwasknockeddownasar esul
tofcarel
ess
dri
vi
ngofal orr
ybythedefendant .Hesuff
eredi nj
uryt
ohi slegandwasr ushedtothehospital
almostimmediatel
y.Howev er,bef
orecompl et
ionofhistreatmentandagainstthedoctor
’s
medicaladvi
ce,hedischar
gedhi mselfonl
yt oretur
naftertwoday s.Thel
egwasi nfect
edand
consequentl
yitwasamput ated.

Aclaimfort helossofthel egbroughtagainstthedefendantbytheplai

ntif
ffai
ledbecause,
though,i
twasf orceablethattheplaint
iffwouldasar esul
toftheaccidentsust
ainedinjur
y.I
t
wasnotf oreseeablethatthedefendantwoul dagainstmedicaladvi
celeavethehospitalf
ortwo
daysleadingtoinfecti
onthatnecessi t
atedtheamput ati
onofhisleg.Thiswasheldtobet oo
remoteandt hedef endantwasnothel dliabl
e.
 NUI
SANCE

Anuisanceisani
nconveni
encemateri
all
yinter
fer
ingwi
thordi
narycomfor
t,physi
calofhuman
exi
stence,
notmerel
yaccordi
ngtoelegantanddaint
ymodesandhabitsofli
vingbutaccor
ding
topl
ainandsoberandcommonnot i
onofEngl i
shpeopl
e.SeethecaseofWalterV.Self
e(1851)
64ER849at852

Thet
erm nui
sancecanbet
radi
ti
onal
l
yusedi
nthr
eeway
s:

*
Todescri
beanacti
vi
tyorcondit
iont
hati
sharmfulorannoy
ingtoother
se.
gindecentconduct
,
r
ubbi
shi
ng,gar
bagedump,dressi
ngwhichcanconsti
tut
enuisance,
etc.

*Todescr
ibethehar
m causedbyt
heaf
orement
ionedact
ivi
tyorcondi
ti
one.
gloudnoi
se,
obj
ecti
onabl
eodour.

*Todescribealegall
iabi
l
ityt
hatari
sesf r
om thecombinati
onoft
hetwo.However,
the
i
nterf
erencemustnotbeasar esul
toftheneighbort
respassi
ngonalandbutar
isi
ngfr
om
acti
vi
ti
est aki
ngplaceonanotherperson’
slandthati
saffecti
ngt
heenjoy
mentofthatl
and.

Nuisancei
st hatbranchoft
helawthatismost l
yconcernedwi ththeprot
ecti
onofthe
envir
onmentt houghther
eareareasofnuisancesuchas: obstr
uctionoft
hehighwayoraccess
ther
et owhichinitsel
fmayhavenoenvironmentalfl
avor.Nuisanceisacti
onabl
e,whetherpubl
i
c
orpriv
ate.

PUBLI
CNUI
SANCE

I
tisanactaffect
ingthepublicatlar
georsomeconsiderabl
eporti
onofitorinter
feri
ngwith
ri
ghtwhichmember soft hecommuni t
ymightot
her
wi seenj
oysuchasheal th,safet
y,comfor
t
orconv
enienceofpubl i
cgenerall
yorthatt
endst
odegr adepubli
cmorals,
tradesthatcauses
off
ensi
vesmel l
s,int
oler
ablenoisesandkeepi
ngofi
nflammabl esubst
ancee.ggunpowderi n
l
argequanti
ty.

N.B:Publi
cnuisancei
sacrimebecauseitint
erf
ereswit
htheconvenienceandcomfortofthe
publ
ic.Exampleofthi
sincl
udes;obst
ruct
ionofapubli
chighway,i
nterf
eri
ngwithnav
igati
on
ri
ghtofar i
ver
,makingobscenecall
stoawoman, obst
ructi
ngthetraff
ic,
etc.

Publ
i
cnui
sancebei
ngpr
imar
il
ypubl
i
c,i
tisonl
ytheAt
tor
neyGener
alt
hatcanbr
inganact
ionon
i
t.Also,
apri
v at
eper
soncansuef
orpubli
cnuisancebyvi
rt
ueofSect
ion6(
6)and17(e)ofthe
1999consti
tuti
oni
fhecanpr
ovethathehassuffer
edpar
ti
cul
ardamageoverandabovethe
general
publ
ic.

Topr
ovet
hatonehassuf
fer
eddamage;

Thatpart
icul
arpersonmustshowapar
ti
cul
ari
njur
ythatoccur
redt
ohi
m bey
ondt
hatwhi
chi
s
suff
eredbytherestoft
hepubli
c.

Suchi
njur
ymustbeadi
recti
njur
yandnotamer
econsequent
ial
inj
ury
.

Thei
njur
ymustbeofasubst
ant
ial
char
act
er.

PRI
VATENUI
SANCE

Thi
sist
herightofpri
vat
eindivi
duals.I
tisanunlawful
int
erf
erencewi
thaper
son’
suseor
enj
oymentoflandorsomerightoverorinconnecti
onwit
hit.

Undercommonl aw, personsi

npossessi onofrealproper
tyareent
it
ledtothequietenj
oyment
ofthei
rlands.Ifaneighbourinter
fer
eswi ththatenj
oy ment,
iti
ssimplyanint
erfer
encewith
qui
etenjoymentofl andanddoesnoti ncludetr
espass.Theconduct
swhi chcouldamountto
pri
vatenuisanceincludesthefoll
owing:

*
Conduct
swhi
chcoul
dinf
li
cti
njur
ytopr
oper
ty,
str
uct
ure,
veget
ati
on,
bei
ngs,
ani
mal
s

*
Conduct
sthatwi
l
laf
fectt
hecomf
ort
,conv
eni
ence,
heal
thandenj
oymentofper
sonsandt
he
l
i
kes

DEFENCES

Amongt
hedef
enceswhi
cht
hedef
endantmaypl
eadi
nanact
ionf
ornui
sancei
ncl
udes;

1.
Thet
ri
vi
ali
tyoft
henui
sanceal
l
eged

2.Thereasonabl
enessoft
heacthav
ingr
egar
dtot
hel
ocal
i
ty,
consent
,pr
escr
ipt
ion,
cont
ri
but
ory
negli
gence

3.
Actofst
ranger

4.
ActofGod

N.B:i
tisnotadef
encet
hatacl
aimantwasawar
eoft
henui
sancewhenhemov
edi
ntot
he
envi
ronment.
REMEDI
ES

Remedi
est
othet
ortofnui
sancei
ncl
udesdamagesandabet
ment

STRI
CTLI
ABI
LITY

I
nthel
awoftort
,ther
ear
esev
eral
areaswher
ethepr
inci
pleofst
ri
ctl
i
abi
l
ityappl
i
esandi
n
v
ari
ousdegr
ees.

Stri
ctl
iabil
it
yisaliabi
li
tythatatt
achestoapersononceawr ongoccur
s,wi
thoutact
ual
negli
genceorintenti
on,becausetherehasbeenabreachofanabsolut
edutynottodothethi
ng
thati
spr ohi
bit
ed.Stri
ctli
abil
it
yisalsoknownas“absol
utel
iabil
it
y”or“
li
abi
l
itywit
houtf
ault
”.

Thetorti
nwhichstri
ctli
abi
li
tyexistsi
nv ari
ousdegr
eesincl
udi
ng:
incl
udi
ngtherul
einRyl
andsv.
Fl
etcher,
li
abi
l
ityf
oranimals,l
iabil
it
yforbreachofst
atut
orydut
y,l
i
abil
i
tyfordef
ect
ivepr
oduct
s
andconsumerprotect
ion,l
i
abili
tyforl
ibel,
etc.

Essenti
all
y,t
hepri
ncipl
eofstri
ctl
iabi
li
tymeanst
hat,awrongdoeri
sliabl
eoncet
heprohi
bit
ed
actisdoneoroccurs,i
rr
elev
antofthestat
eofmindofthewrongdoeratthemat
eri
alt
ime.

Asamatt
eroff
act,
all
overtheworl
d,whethercr
iminal
lawortor
ts,
stri
ctl
iabi
li
tymeanst
hat
mensr
eaorgui
lt
ymindisnotrel
evantandisnotr
equir
edforawrongdoertobeli
abl
e.

THERULEI
NRYLANDSv
.FLETCHER

Accor
dingt
oBl
ackbur
n.J,
int
hecel
ebr
atedcaseofRy
landsv
.Fl
etcher
,hequi
ppedt
hat
:

“Therul
eoflawisthatapersonwhoforhisownpur posesbr
ingsonhislandandcoll
ectsand
keepsther
eanythi
nglikel
ytodomischiefi
fitescapes,
mustkeepiti
nathi sownperi
l,andifhe
doesnotdoso,ispri
maf aci
eanswerablef
orallthedamagewhichisthenatural
consequences
ofit
sescape”.

Essenti
all
y,t
herulei
nthi
slandmar
kEngl
i
shl
awt
ortcaseappl
i
est
hedoct
ri
neofst
ri
ctl
i
abi
l
ityt
o
i
nherentl
ydangerousact
ivi
ti
es.

Onappeal
byRy
lands,
theHouseofLor
dsconf
ir
medt
hepr
evi
ousj
udgementbutr
est
ri
ctedt
he
rul
etoanon-
nat
ural
useoft
hel
and.I
test
abl
i
shedar
ulear
guabl
ydi
sti
nctf
rom t
het
ortof
nui
sance.

Also,thesocalledRyl
and’
srulehasi
nAust
rali
aandsomeot hercountr
iesbecomeabsor
bed
i
ntot heordinar
ylawofnegli
gencewit
hal
ltherequi
rementofdutyofcare,
testof
reasonablenessofcar
eandpr oxi
mit
y.

Therul
einRyl
andsv.Fl
etcherwasestabl
ishedasajudge-
madel
awi
nresponset
odamage
causedbyt
heescapeofwat eri
ntonei
ghbor’
sland.

Theappli
cat
ionofthi
srul
e,hasbeenanimpor
tantstepinthedevel
opmentofl
egalpol
i
cy,
rel
ati
ngtomodernindust
ri
es,r
iskal
l
ocati
onandnegligence.Thi
srul
eisst
ri
cti
nthesenset
hat
i
treli
evest
heplai
nti
ffoft
heburdenofshowi
ngfault
.

THEELEMENTSOFRYLANDSv
.FLETCHER

Tosucceedi
nacl
aim undert
hisr
ule,
apl
aint
if
fhast
opr
ovet
hreeel
ement
s,whi
char
e;

Thatt
hedef
endantbr
oughtorkeptanon-
nat
ural
useronhi
sland.

Thatt
her
ewasanescapeoft
henon-
nat
ural
user
.

Thatdamagewasdonet
othepl
aint
if
fasar
esul
t.

APPLI
CATI
ONOFTHERULEI
NNI
GERI
A

Thehazar
dsofpol
lut
ioni
sassoci
atedwit
htheoi
li
ndustr
yandr
api
dgrowt
hofmanuf
actur
ing
act
ivi
ti
esi
nNiger
iasi
nce1960wouldseem t
ohaveensur
edani
mport
antr
olef
ort
herul
e.

Themostsigni
fi
cantoneisthecaseofUmudj ev
.ShellB.
ppetrol
eum (
1975)11SC155where
theSupr
emeCour thel
dthattheDefendantwasl
iabl
efortheescapeofcr
udeoil
wast
ethat
causeddamagetothePlai
ntif
f’
sland.

DEFENCESFORTHERULE

1.
ActofGod

HeretheDefendanti
snotl
iabl
eifhepr
ovesthatt
heescapeofat
hingandtheconsequent
damageoccasionedwereduetoanactofGod.Thi
scouldi
ncl
udeanescapecausedbywind,
ti
de,r
ain,
storm,etc.

I
nthecaseofNi
chol
asv
.Mar
shl
and(
1876)2ExD1,
theDef
endanthadf
ormanyy
ear
sbeeni
n
possessi
onofsomearti
fi
ci
al pool
.Anextr
aordi
naryrai
nbrokedownt heembankmentand
sweptawaysomebridgesofthePlai
nti
ff
.Itwasheldthatt
heDefendantwasnotli
abl
eforthe
damagescausedbecausetherehadbeennonegli
genceonhispart.

2.
ConsentofThePl
aint
if
f

WhereaPlaint
iffhasexpr
essl
yorimpl
iedl
yconsent
edt
othesour
ceofdanger
,theDef
endant
wi
llnotbel
iable,unl
esshehasbeennegli
gent
.

Thisdef
enceat
tr
act
sthemaxi
m of“
vol
ent
inonf
iti
njur
ia”i
eani
njur
yisnotdonet
oone
consent
ingt
oit
.

I
nPet er
sv .Pri
nceofWal esTheat er
sLt d(1943)KB73, theDef endantcompanyl easedashop
i
nt heirtheatr
ebui l
dingtothePl aint
iff.Inthebuilding,awat erspri
nklerwasinstall
edagai nst
fi
rerisk.Howev er,t
hiswat ersprinkl
erdev elopedf aultandwat erpouredf r
om thesy stem and
damagedt hePlainti
ff’
sstock.Hel d:thewat erspr i
nklerhadbeeni nstall
edforthecommon
benefitandpr ot
ectionofthePl ainti
ffandDef endantandt her
ewasnonegl i
genceont hepartof
theDef endantininstal
lat
ionandmai nt enanceoft hesy stem.Ther ef
ore,hewasnotl i
able.

3.
Actofast
rangerort
hir
dpar
ty:

ADefendantmayavoi
dli
abili
tyifheisabl
etoprovet
hatt
heescapewasduetot
hei
ndependent
actofathi
rdpar
ty,
thi
ef,
trespasserorstr
angerov
erwhohehasnocontr
ol.

4.
Stat
utor
yAut
hor
it
y:

Sometimes,publ
icaut
hor
iti
escahr
gedwithper
formi
ngapart
icul
arser
vicel
i
kesuppl
yofwat er
,
gas,el
ectr
ici
tyar
eexemptedfr
om li
abi
l
ity
,prov
idedt
heyhav
enotbeennegli
genti
ndischar
ging
thei
rduty
.

Thus,inGreenv.ChelseaWat erworksco.( 1891-94)AllER543, t

heDefendantwaterworkswas
authori
zedbystatut
et olaywat ermainsf orthesupplyofwat eri
nthetownofChel sea,
Engl
and.
Awat erpi
peburstsandwat erf
loodedt hePlainti
ff
’spremises.Held:
theDefendantwasnot
l
iableastherewasnonegl igenceont heirpart.

LI
ABI
LITYFORANI
MALS

Al
lovert
heworl
d,peopler
earorkeepvari
ouskindsofani
mal
sfordi
ff
erentpur
poseswhi
ch
i
ncl
udes;f
orf
ood,forcommerci
alpurpose,aspet,
etc.

Someoftheanimalskeptf
ordiff
erentpur
posesmaybedomest i
canimalsorwi
ldanimal
s.The
gener
alr
uleoflawasregardskeepi
ngofananimali
sthatapersonkeepsananimalathi
sown
ri
skandi
sliabl
eforanyinj
uryordamagedonebyit
.Thisposi
ti
onofhel awisi
nconsonance
wit
hSect i
on2(1)ofEngland’
sAni
malAct1971.Thi
sisduetotheeff
ectt
hatthekeeperofa
dangerousani
mal isstr
ict
lyl
i
abl
eforanyhar
m causedbythatani
malanditi
simmateri
al
whethertheDefendantwasamerekeeperorr
ealowneri
nasmuchashei sinpossessionofi
t.

LI
ABI
LITYFORDANGEROUSANI
MALS

Li
abil
it
yint
hissi
tuat
ioni
susual
lypr
edicat
edonwhet
herornott
heowneroft
heani
mal
had
pr
iorknowl
edgeoftheani
mal’
sconduct.

Alegal
acti
onbr
oughtt
omakeanowner,keeperorcust
odi
anofadanger
ousani
mal
li
abl
efor
i
t’
sconducti
sknownassci
ent
eract
ion.

Sci
ent
eract
ionscl
assi
fydanger
ousani
mal
sint
otwocat
egor
ies.Namel
y;

Fer
aeNat
uraeAni
mal
s

Ani
mal
sMansuet
aeNat
urae

FERAENATURAEANI
MALS

Theter
m“ Fer
aeNatur
ae”i
saLatinwor
dmeaning“wi
ldnatur
e”ie,
animal
sthatarewildby
nat
ureanddanger
ousbynatur
e.Theyi
ncl
ude;
li
ons,t
iger
s,el
ephants,
Cheet
ahs,etc.

Theyaregeneral
l
ydanger
ous.Howev er
,someofthem canbetamedandi
foneoft
hem i
s
tamedandcausesinj
uryt
oanotherperson,
theowner/
keeperwoul
dbestr
ict
lyl
i
abl
e,r
egardl
ess
thatt
hisspeci
eofani
malhasnotattackedanyonei
nthepast.

Thus,inBehr
ensv .Bert
ram Mil
lsCir
cus(1957)1AllER583,
theownerofatamedelephantwas
heldl
iabl
efortheactsoftheelephanti
ntheattackofthePl
aint
if
f.Thi
swasregar
dlessofthe
factt
hattheelephanthadneveratt
ackedanyoneinthepast
.

ANI
MALSMANSUETAENATURAE

Theter
m“MansuetaeNaturae”i
saLati
nphrase,
meani
ng“t
amedbynatur
e”oranani
malthati
s
notnor
mal
lydangerousbutoccasi
onal
l
yatt
ackshumanbei
nge.
garedogs,bul
ls,
cows,
etc.

Here,al
lthePl ai
nti
ffhastoprovetoest abli
shl i
abil
it
yist
hattheanimal hasav ici
oustendency
andtheownerwasawar eofthi
sv i
cioust endency.InHudsonv .Robert,
thePlaint
if
fwasgor ged
bytheDef endant’
sbullbecausethebul lwasi r
ri
tatedbyther
edhandker chi
efwhichthePlai
ntif
f
woreonhi sneck.ThePwasabl etopr ovet hattheDknewoft hev i
cioustendencyandtheD
washeldliable.
Notehowevert
hatl
i
abil
it
ywouldnotar
isei
nasi
tuat
ioni
nwhi
cht
heani
mal
wasact
ing
accor
dingt
oit’
snat
ural
inst
inct
.

N.B:
Liabi
l
ityf
orananimali
sst
ri
ct.Assuch,
apersonwhokeepsanani
mal
doesi
tathi
sown
r
iskandheisstr
ict
lyl
i
ablef
oranydamagecausedbytheani
mal.

DEFENCESTOSCI
ENTAACTI
ON

Pl
aint
if
f’
Faul
t:

Wher eaper soni

rrit
atedorcourtedanani mal andi
nvit
edtheinj
uryuponhi mselforproper
ty.I
n
Serahv .Bl
ackburn,itwasheldthataper sonwhot r
espassesint
oanot herman’slandandi s
attackedbyabi r
ddogwoul dhav enocl aim duetohisdef
ault
.Also,inSyncamor ev.Ley,i
twas
heldthattheactoft hePl
aint
iffi
nt easi
ngt hedogservesasadef encesinceitwast he
Plainti
ff
’sdefaul
titoccur
red.

Consent
/Vol
ent
inonf
iti
njur
ia:

Thiscouldapplyi
nsituat
ionwhereaper sonbynat ur
eofhiswor korotherpurpose,has
vol
untari
lyexposedhimselft
otheriskofbeingattackedbyt heanimal
.Suchwast hesit
uat
ion
i
nRandsv .McNeil(
1955)1QB253, whereapersonwi ll
i
nglyoffer
edtotrai
nadogandgot
i
njuredinthecourseofdoingso.Held;hehadconsent edtothedangerthatcouldarisei
nso
doing.

Actofat
hir
dPar
ty

Thismaybeadef encewher
einathir
dpartyChase’
sanani
malontoanotherperson’
slandor
fr
ight
ensitandcausesi
ttorunt
ot hepl
ainti
fforhi
spr
oper
ty,
ther
ebyoccasioni
nginj
urytohi
m
orcausi
ngdamaget ohispr
oper
ty.

ActofGod

Anactofnaturesuchasl
ighteni
ngorloudthunderwhichcancauseani
mal t
of earandjumpon
tothePlai
nti
fforst
ampedeintohispr
opert
yoranani malrunni
ngawayfrom f
lood,fol
lowinga
heavydownpourofrai
nmaycomeunderpl eaofactofGod.

CATTLETRESPASS

Thiscategoryofanimaltr
espassdeal
swithsi
tuati
oninwhi chcat
tl
einthepossessi
onor
contr
oloftheDef endantmovesint
othel
andoft hePlaint
if
ftocausedamagetherei
n.The
ani
mal sinthiscategor
yaregoats,
dogs,
cows,pigs,etc.
 MALI
CIOUSPROSECUTI
ON

Thetortofmaliciousprosecuti
oniscommit
tedwhereadefendantwit
houtr
easonabl
eor
probablecausemal i
ciousl
yinsti
tut
eacri
minalpr
oceedi
ngagainstt
heplai
nti
ffwhi
chter
minat
es
i
nf avoroftheplaint
if
f.

Thepurposeofthet
ortofmali
ciousprosecuti
onist
oprohi
bitunlawf
ulprosecut
ionofaper
son.
I
tprot
ectsapersonthathasbeenprosecutedwit
houtr
easonableorprobabl
ecause.

ELEMENTSOFMALI
CIOUSPROSECUTI
ON

I
nor
dert
osucceedi
nanact
ionf
ormal
i
ciouspr
osecut
ion,
thePl
aint
if
fmustpr
ovet
hef
oll
owi
ng:

Thatt
heDef
endanti
nst
it
utedapr
osecut
ionagai
nsthi
m

Thatt
hepr
osecut
ionendedi
nthePl
aint
if
f’
sfav
or

Thatt
heDef
endanthadnor
easonabl
eandpr
obabl
ecause

Thatt
heDef
endantact
edwi
thmal
i
ce

Thatt
hePl
aint
if
fsuf
fer
eddamagest
ohi
sreput
ati
on,
per
sonorpr
oper
ty.

*
Thatt
heDef
endantI
nst
it
utedAPr
osecut
ionAgai
nstHi
m

ThePlai
nti
ffmustshowf ir
stofallt
hattheDefendantInsti
tutedpr
osecuti
onagainsthim.I
n
Danbyv.Beardsl
ey(1880)43LT603, itwasheldthat:
“t osucceedinthi
scase,t
hePl ai
nti
ff
mustshowt hati
twast heDefendantwhowasact iv
elyinstrument
alinsett
ingt
helawi nmotion
agai
nstthePlai
nti
ff
”.

Thefol
l
owingpr
inci
pleast
owhat“
set
ti
ngt
hel
awi
nmot
ion”hasbeenest
abl
i
shedbyt
he
aut
hori
ti
es:

Iti
snotnecessar
ythattheDef
endantshoul
dhaveactual
lyconduct
edtheprosecuti
on.Iti
s
suff
ici
entf
orli
abil
it
yiff
orexampl
e,helaidaninf
ormati
onbeforeamagistr
ate,onthebasiso
whichthemagist
ratei
ssuesasummonont hePl
aint
if
fasseeninInnehv.Aruegbon(1952)14
WACA73

Atoneti
me,i
twasthoughtt
hatt
heDefendantwoul
dnotbel
iabl
eunl
esst
hePr
osecut
ioncoul
d
besai
dtohaveact
uall
ycommenced.SeeGregor
yv.Der
by.

Wher
etheDef
endantmer
elyi
nfor
mst
hepol
i
ceofacer
tai
nfactwhi
chi
ncr
imi
nat
est
hePl
aint
if
f
andt
hepol
i
ceasar
esul
tdeci
dest
opr
osecut
etheDef
endant
.

*
Ter
minat
ionofPr
osecut
ioni
nPl
aint
if
f’
sFav
our

Thisi
sthesecondrequi
rementforasuccessf
ulacti
oni
nmal
i
ciouspr
osecut
ion.Thi
s
requi
rementi
ssati
sfi
edinthefol
lowi
ngsituat
ions;

Wheret
heplai
nti
ffwasconv
ict
edatl
owercour
tbutsetasi
deonappeal
.Seet
hecaseof
Her
nimalv
.Smith(1938)
AC305

Wheretheaccusedpersonwasnotconv i
ctedofof
fencechar
gedbutconv
ict
edofal
esser
char
ge.SeeBolerv.Holder
(1887)51kbpg227

Wher
ehewasacqui
tt
edongr
oundoft
echni
cal
i
ty.SeeWi
cksv
.Fent
ham (
1791)100ER

I
fthepr
osecut
ionf
oranyr
easonwi
thdr
awst
hechar
ges.SeeHi
cksv
.Lee(
1839)150ERpg.
115

Wheret
heAtt
orneyGener
ali
ssuesnol
l
epr
oseque.Seet
hecaseofYeboav
.Boat
eng,
Eji
kemev
.
Nwosu,
Eshemov .Jul
i
usber
ger(Ni
g)

*
LackOfReasonabl
eandPr
obabl
eCause

I
tisdiffi
culttodefinereasonableandprobabl
ecause.I nthecaseofHer nimal v.Smith,t
he
HouseofLor dsadoptedt hedefini
ti
ongiveni
nHi cksv .FaulknerbyHawki ns.Jasf oll
ows,“an
honestbeliefintheguiltoftheaccusedbasedonf ullconv i
ction,f
oundeduponr easonabl
e
groundsoft heexistenceofast ateofci
rcumstanceswhi ch, assumingthem tobet rue,would
reasonablyleadanyor dinar
ilypr
udentandcourteousmanpl acedinthepositi
onoft heaccuser
totheconcl usi
onthatt hepersonchargedwaspr obablyguiltyofthecrimei mputed.”

Thef
oll
owi
ngpr
inci
plehav
ebeenest
abl
i
shedbyot
heraut
hor
it
ies

Theov eral
lquesti
onisbot hobj
ectiveandsubject
ive:
whetherareasonabl
emanwhohas
knowledgeoft hefactknownbyt hedefendantattheti
meofinsti
tuti
ngtheprosecut
ionwould
havebel i
evedtheplai
ntif
ftobepr obabl
yguil
tyoftheall
egedcri
me.Whet hert
hedefendant
honestlybeli
evedthattheplai
nti
ffwasguilt
y.

Wher
ethedef
endantactshonest
lyunderamistakenimpressi
onastothet
ruef
acti
nacl
aimt
o
bej
udgedont
hosemi st
akenfact
.SeeGlinksi
v.Mclver(1962)AC726

Reli
anceoffactmustbebasedonfactsknownattheti
meheinit
iat
edtheprosecuti
onwhichin
facthebel
ievesar
ereasonabl
eandprobablecausef
orthepr
osecuti
on.SeeTurnerv.Amblak
(1847)116ERpg.98

Wher
ereasonabl
eandpr
obabl
ecauseexi
stsatt
het
imeofi
nst
it
uti
ngt
hepr
osecut
ionbutsome
otherf
actl
atercametol
ightwhichshowsthattheprosecut
ioni
sgroundl
ess.I
fthi
snewfact
s
arenotdi
scl
osedbythedefendantt
othecourt,
t hedef
endantwi
llbeli
abl
e.SeeTimsv.John
Lewis&co

Wherethedefendantwhobel iev
esthattheplai
nti
ffisguil
tyl
aysthef acti
nfull
andf ai
rlybef
ore
ei
theracouncilorapoliceisadvi
sedbyeitherofthetwothatapr osecuti
onisjusti
fi
ed,hewill
beheldtohavehadr easonableandprobablecausefortheprosecuti
onbutnot ethatther
eisno
i
nvari
abler
uletot hi
sbeliev
e.

Thef actthatt
heplai
nti
ffwasconvi
ctedfort
rial
byamagi st
rateorev
enwher ehewas
convictedatcour
toffir
stinst
anceandonlyacquit
tedonappeali
snotconclusi
vethati
twasa
reasonableandprobabl
ecauseofprosecuti
on.SeeBalogunv.Amubikanhu(1989)3NWLRpt
107,p.18SC

Thedef
endant
sar
ecl
ear
lyt
hepr
osecut
ors.

Thatt
heent
ryofnol
l
epr
osequesuf
fi
cient
lyt
ermi
nat
edt
hepr
oceedi
ngsi
nfav
ouroft
hepl
aint
if
f.

Theper si
stenceoft hedefendantt hattheplainti
ffmustbepr osecutedafterbeinginf
ormedby
thepolicethatthefactsdidnotdi sclosethecommi ssionofanycriminaloffencewasnotin
i
tselfsuffi
cientevi
denceofmal iceorofr easonabl eandpr obabl
ecausebutsi ncei
twasclear
thatthedefendantsknewt hatthepay mentofpassi fi
cationfeewasl awf
ul accordi
ngtocustom,
theycouldnotgenui nel
yhav ebelievedint heplai
ntiff
’sguil
tandtherefor
ecoul dnothavehad
reasonableandpr obablecausef orthepr osecuti
on.

Thefactt
hatthedefendantshadprosecutedontheadv
iceofasol i
cit
ordi
dnotprotectt
hem
si
ncetheyhadnotdisclosedtothesol
ici
torther
elev
antfactthatavali
dar
bitr
ati
onhadbeen
hel
dandthatthemoneyt heyhadpai
dwasbywayofpaci ficat
iontothepl
aint
if
finaccor
dance
wit
htheestabl
ishedcustom.

Mal
i
ce:

Iti
swor t
hytonotet
hatt
hejudici
alat
tempttodef
inemali
cehasnotbeencomplet
ely
successful
.Mal
icei
nthi
scontexthasawidermeaningt
hanspi
te,
il
lwil
lordesi
reforvengeance.

I
tisalsowor t
hyt onot
et hatangerisnotthesameasmal i
ce.Mali
cetherefor
ei ncl
udesany
moti
veot herthantosimpl yi
nsti
tutetheprosecuti
onf ort
hepurposeofbr i
ngingaper sonto
j
usti
ce.Themomentmal ici
ousintentcanbeest abl
ishedinthepurposeofbringingapersonto
j
usti
ce,suchpr osecut
ionmayf ail
.
Howev
er,mali
ceandl
ackofr
easonabl
eandpr
obabl
ecausemustbepr
ovedsepar
atel
yast
hey
ar
enotthesame.

Rel
ati
onshi
pBet
weenMal
i
ceandLackofReasonabl
eandPr
obabl
eCause

Mali
ceishonest
yofmot i
vewhil
elackofr easonableandprobablecauseisthehonest
yofbel
ief
i
ntheguil
tofthepl
aint
if
f.Notefur
therthatthetwoelementov erl
apinthesensethatwher
ethe
def
endantdoesnothavehonestbeli
efi
nt heguil
toftheplaint
iff
,thi
swill
notconsti
tut
e
evi
denceofmali
ceandlackofreasonableandpr obabl
ecause.

However
,itiswort
hytonot
eal
sot
hatmal
i
cedoesnotsuppl
yev
idenceofl
ackofr
easonabl
e
andpr
obablecause.

I
nef fect
,ifthedefendant
’sconducti
sact
uatedbymali
ce,
hemaynotbeliabl
eformal
ici
ous
prosecuti
oni fhehasreasonabl
ecausetobeli
evet
hatt
heplai
nti
ffi
sgui
l
tyofthecr
imechar
ged.
SeeUsi f
ov .Uke(1958)3FSC59

Damages

Fi
nall
y,t
heplai
nti
ffmustbeabl
etoprovethati
thascauseddamaget
ohi
sreput
ati
on,
proper
ty
orper
son.SeeRaysonv.SouthLondoncompany(1893)2QB304

DEFAMATI
ON

Defamat
ionwasthemostl i
ti
gatedt
orti
ntheearl
y1960s.Therul
eofl
awofdefamati
onist
o
ensur
ethatf
reedom ofspeechdoesnotout
weightheprot
ect
ionofr
eput
ati
onofindi
vi
dual
s.

Whati
sadef
amat
oryst
atement
?

Adef amatoryst
atementisonewhi chtendstolowert
heplainti
ffintheestimati
onofr i
ght
thi
nkingmember softhesoci et
ygeneral
lywhichmayexposehi mt ohatred,contemptor
ri
diculeortocauseotherpersonstoshunorav oi
dhim ort
odi scr
edithimi nhi
sof f
ice,
tradeor
professi
onortoinjur
ehisfinancial
credi
t.SeethecaseofOf oegbuv .Onwuka

I
nt hecaseofByrnev.Dean( 1937)1KB818CA, theplai
nti
ffinthatcasebel
ongtothesame
gulfcl
ubwiththedefendant.Theplai
nti
ffal
l
egedthatthedefendanthaddefamedhim by
putti
ngupanot i
ceintheclubtot heef
fectt
hathe(theplai
nti
ff)hadmadear eportt
othepol
i
ce
thatcer
tai
nil
legalgamingmachi neswerekeptonthepremisesoftheclub.Held:
No
defamati
on.

Not
efur
thert
hatt
het
erm“
apar
ti
cul
arsect
ionoft
hecommuni
ty”wasdef
inedas:
abodyof
personswhosubscribetostandardsofconductwhi charenotthoseofsociet
ygener
all
y.See
thecaseofEgbunav .Amalgamat edPressLt d(1967)ANLR27I nthi
scontext
,thi
swil
lnot
i
ncludethecoll
eaguesorbusi nessassociateofaprofessi
onalper
sonunlessther
eare
standar
d’sofconductofmor ali
tyaredif
ferentfr
om thoseofri
ghtthi
nki
ngpersonsgeneral
ly
.

TYPESOFDEFAMATI
ON

Sl
ander

Li
bel

I
tiswort
hytonotet
hatt
hetwoty
pesofdef
amationusedt
obesepar
atet
orthi
stor
ical
l
y.Today
,
t
heyaretr
eatedast
woaspect
sofasi
nglet
ortofdef
amati
on.

Also,thereisdoubtastowhet herdefamat
oryst
atementscanberecordedondisk,tapes,CDS
canber egardedasli
belorslander.Exampl
esofli
belar
elett
er,newspaperpubl
i
cation,
photographs,tel
evi
sion,
etc.

DI
STI
NCTI
ONBETWEENLI
BELANDSLANDER

Libel
isadefamatorystat
ementpermanentinfor
m whi
l
esl
anderi
str
ansi
tor
y(t
empor
ary
)in
form.SeeIndependentNewspaperLtdv.Idiong

Iti
sal
sowor thytonotethatl
i
belisal
waysactionabl
eperseiePl
aint
if
fdoesnotneedt
oprov
e
damagef orDefendantt
obeliabl
ewhil
eslanderisNOTacti
onabl
eperse,excepti
ncer
tai
n
sit
uat
ions.

InthecaseofNt hendav .Alade(1974)ECSLR109,t

hecour
trej
ect
ingthear
gumentoft
he
defendantcounselthattheplai
nti
ffhadfail
edt
oprovet
hathehadsuff
ereddamageandas
suchhisactionhast ofail
.Thecourthasthi
stosay:

“I
nanactionforli
bel,t
hepl
aint
iffneednotprovemalicei
nl awandneedsnotpr
ovet
hathehad
suff
eredanyactualdamageast heresul
tofthepubli
cati
on.Bothmali
ceanddamagecanbe
suedfrom t
hepublicat
ioni
tsel
f,intheabsenceoflawfulexcuse.”

Sl
anderi
sgener
all
yNOTact
ionabl
eperseexcepti
ncer
tai
nsi
tuat
ions,
whi
chi
ncl
udes:

Wheretherei
simputati
onofcr
ime:anyall
egati
onthatt
hepl
aint
if
fhascommi
tt
edanof
fence
puni
shablebyi
mprisonmenti
sslanderact
ionabl
eperse.

Her
e,

a.
)Ther
emustbeadi
rectasser
ti
onofgui
l
t.
b.
)Thewor
dsusedmustbel
ookedati
nthecont
exti
nwhi
cht
heywer
espoken.

c.)Theall
egedcr i
memustbepuni shedcor poral
ly.SeeFar ashi v.Yakubuwher ethepl ainti
ff
clai
meddamagesf orslanderi nr espectofwor dsutteredbyt hedef endantimput ingthatt he
plai
nti
ffhadcommi ttedadul terywi t
hthedef endant’ssist
erinl aw.Her e,act ualdamagewas
notprovedast helear nedjudgef oundoutt hatbysect i
on387oft heCr i
mi nalcodeadul t
erybya
manwaspuni shablebyi mpr isonmentbutt hesectionf ur
therpr ovidest hatthemanconcer ned
mustbesubj ecttot henat i
vel awandcust om inwhi chextramar i
tal i
ntercoursewasr ecognized
asacr i
me.Ev idencewasadducedwhi chshowedt hatundert hel ocal l
awandcust om towhi ch
theplai
nti
ffwassubj ect,adulterywasnotacr imesi nceitwasnotpuni shablebycanni ngunless
theadult
ererfail
st opaycompensat i
ontot hewoman’ shusband.Thecour theldt hatthe
posit
ionwassi milartoi mprisonmenti ndefaultofpay i
ngaf ineandt hatt heslanderwas
accordi
nglynotact i
onabl ewi thoutproofofact ualdamage.

D)Wheret
hereisimput
ati
onofcer
tai
ndi
sease:
Iti
sact
ionabl
eperset
osayt
hatt
hePl
aint
if
fis
i
nfect
edwithcert
ai

ncont
agi
ousorr
epul
siv
edi
seasesi
ncet
hiswoul
dcauseot
herper
sonst
oav
oidhi
m.

Wheret
hereisanimputati
onofunchasti
tyoradult
ery:Unchast
it
yhasbeenheldt
oi ncl
ude
l
esbi
ani
sm, homosexual
ism,et
c.Secti
on1ofSl anderofWomenAct1891hasmadesuchan
i
mputat
ionconcer
ninganywomanorgi rlact
ionabl
eperse.SeeKerrv.Kennedy(1942)1KB
409

Wher
ether
eisani
mput
ati
onaf
fect
ingpr
ofessi
onal
orbusi
nessr
eput
ati
on:

Undert hisheading,t
hest atementmustbedi spar agedinthewayi nwhichhe/ sheexerciseshi
s
profession.Forexampl e,i
fitissaidthatal awyerdoesnotknowt helawort hatasur geonis
i
ncompet entorthatat r
aderisbankr upt.SeethecaseofHopwoodv .Muirson.Itshouldbe
notedt hatatcommonl aw,sl anderbotheringont hisendwi l
lnotbeactionableperseunl essi
t
disparagesthepl ai
ntif
finthewayhe/ sheexerciseshi s/
herprofessi
on.Seet hecaseofJonesv .
Jones.Not efurtherthatthi
scommonl awr ul
eisst il
li
nf or
ceintheNor t
hernst ateofNigeri
a
wher easithasbeenal ter
edi nt heWestern,East ernandLagosst atebystatutoryprovi
sions
fashionedinlinewiththeEngl ishDefamat i
onAct1952.

VULGARABUSE

Notethatwor dsofheatandangerar enotacti

onableinslander.Whet herparti
cul
arwor ds
consti
tutesslanderormer eotherabusedependsoncircumstancesi nwhi chthewordsare
spoken.Thus, i
nBakarev .I
shola(1969)WRNLR106, therehadbeenaf ightbetweenthepart
ies
andintheheatofanger ,Bakarecall
edIshol
aa“ t
hief
”and“ ex-convi
ct”.Held:t
hewor ds
complainedofwer emerev ulgarabuseastheyhadbeenspokeni ntheheatofanger .Hence,
he
wasnotl iabl
einslander
However,whereavul
garabuseal l
egesaspecifi
cactorall
egesthatthePlai
nti
ffcommitt
eda
speci
fi
coffenceorwrongdoing,t
henthestatementwil
lnotberegardedasamer evul
garabuse.
InI
beanuv .Uba,
theDefendantinthepr
esenceofonlookersal
legedthePlaint
if
fofbr
ingi
ng
thi
evestohishouset
ost ealhi
sgoat.Hel
d: t
heDefendantwasliabl
einslander.

WRI
TTENABUSE

General
l
y,abusewhenwri
tt
enisdef
amat
ory
,unl
esst
hewor
dsdonotamountt
odef
amat
ionor
wil
lnotbeunderst
oodassuch.

REMOTENESSOFDAMAGEI
NDEFAMATI
ON

I
naccordancewiththegeneral
tortpr
inci
ple,t
hedamagecompl ai
nedofmustnotbetoor
emot
e.
ThePl
ainti
ffmayrecovercompensati
ononl yfort
heconsequenceoft
heDefendant
’s
def
amatorystat
ementwhi chwerefor
eseeable.

ELEMENTSOFDEFAMATI
ON

Thepl
aint
if
fmustpr
ovet
hef
oll
owi
ngi
nanact
ionf
ordef
amat
ion:

Thatt
hewor
dswer
edef
amat
ory

Thatt
hewor
dsr
efer
redt
othepl
aint
if
f

Thatt
hewor
dswer
epubl
i
shedt
oatl
eastoneper
sonot
hert
hant
hepl
aint
if
f

*THATTHEWORDSWEREDEFAMATORY

Thedet er
minat
ionofwhetherwor
dswer
ecapabl
eofbei
ngdefamator
yintheeyesofa
reasonablemanandwhet hert
hewor
dswer
edefamat
oryli
eswit
hthejudge.SeeThesket
ch
publi
c.CoLtdv.Ajagbe.

Thecourtwil
ll
ookatt hest
andardofar
ightt
hinki
ngmanandal
sot
hecl
earandnat
ural
meaningthatareasonabl
epersonwoul
dgivethem.

Wher
ethewor
dsar
ecl
ear
lydef
amat
ory
,thi
sisasi
mpl
etask.Forexampl
e,“
Adei
sanar
med
robber
”.Thet
askhoweverbecomesconsi
derabl
ydiff
icul
twherethewordscompl
ainedofar
e
capabl
eoftwomeaningsiederogat
oryoft
heplaint
if
foraninnocentmeani
ng.

I
nthel
awofdef
amat
ion,
innuendosar
eof
tenconsi
der
edandt
heyar
eoft
wot
ypes

True/
Legalinnuendos:Thesear ewor
dsnotdef
amatoryontheirf
acebuthav eadefamatory
meaningthatcouldbeunder st
oodbypeopl
ewhoknewt heplaint
ifffrom t
hewor ds.Seethe
caseofAkintolav.Anyi
am (1961)1ANLR529.Foranacti
onorapl eaofinnuendotosucceed,
detai
l
sofall suchmeaningsmustbeexplai
nedinthepl
eadingsandt heplaint
if
fmustestabli
sh
thatt
hewor dsmi ghtbeestabl
ishedi
nadefamator
ysendsbyper sonwhohasknowl edgeof
speci
alfact
s.

False/Popul arinnuendos:Thesearewordsthatar
edefamator
ybecauseofdefamat ory
i
nfluence,whi chreasonablepersonsgener
all
ywoulddrawthem f
rom.InMutualAidSocietyLt
d
v.Aker el
e,theCour theldthatt
heaucti
onsaleadver
twasdefamatoryonthePlai
ntif
f.Itwasan
i
nnuendot hatthePl ai
nti
ff
’spropert
ywasbeingaucti
onedi
nordertopayhisdebt.Thiswas
i
njurioustot hePlainti
ff
’scredi
t.

*
THATTHEWORDSREFERTOTHEPLAI
NTI
FF

ThePlai
nti
ffmustprovethatthedefamat
oryst
atementref
erst
ohim.Her
e,t
hePl
aint
if
f’
sini
ti
al,
drawi
ng,of
fice-
post
,verbaldescr
ipt
ioni
senoughtoestabl
isht
his.

Tothisend,Fat
ayi
Wi l
l
iamsJSCi nDalumov .Thesket
chpublishi
ngcolt
dquippedthat
,inan
acti
onfordefamat
ion,i
tisnotnecessar
ythatthewordsshouldref
ert
othePlaint
if
fbyname.
Provi
dedthewordscouldbeunderstoodbyreasonabl
epersonstoref
ertohi
m…

Notehoweverthati
faclassofpeopl
eisdef
amed, nosingl
eindi
vi
dualcanbr
inganact
ionon
defamati
onexceptift
heclassi
ssosmallandascert
ainabl
easseeninDalumov.Thesket
ch
publi
shi
ngco.Ltd(1972)ANLR567.

*
THEWORDSMUSTBEPUBLI
SHEDTOATLEASTONEPERSONOTHERTHANTHEPLAI
NTI
FF

Iti
snotacti
onableinci
vi
llawtomakeadef amatorystat
ementtotheplainti
ffal
oneoutofhear
shotofathi
rdpersonortowr i
tealett
ertotheplai
ntif
fcont
aini
ngdef amatorymater
ial
.Note
thatt
heplai
nti
ffshowedapot ent
ial
lydefamatorylet
tert
osomeoneel se,ther
eisadefenceof
“vol
enti
”si
nceiti
st hepl
aint
if
fandnott hedefendantwhohaspublishedthestatement
.

I
ftheli
beli
swr i
ttent
ot heper
sonthatwaslibel
l
ed, i
tisnotdef
amati
on.However
,ifi
tisshown
toathi
rdpart
y,thedefenceof“v
olent
i”cansuff
ice.SeethecaseofOkot
chav.Olumese(1967)
FNLR174

Bypubli
cati
onismeantthatthemakingknownoft hedef
amati
ontopersonsot
herthanthe
persont
owhom i ti
swrit
ten.Thewri
t i
ngofal i
bel
totheper
sonli
bell
eddoesnotconst
itut
e
publi
cat
ionfort
hepurposeofacivi
laction.Not
efurt
hert
hatanacti
onmustfai
lifpubl
icat
ionof
thedefamator
ymatt
erisnotprov
ed.SeeO.NNsirinv
.E.ANsi
ri
n.Notef
urt
hert
hatever
y
repet
it
ionofadef
amatoryst
atementi
sfreshpubl
i
cati
onwhi
chwil
lgi
veri
setoacour
seof
acti
on.

I
NSTANCESTHATWI
LLNOTAMOUNTTOPUBLI
CATI
ONARE:

Publ
i
cat
ionofdef
amat
orywor
dst
oper
sonswhocoul
dnotunder
standt
hewor
ds

St
atementofone’
sspouse

Publicat
iontoapersonwhom thedefendantdi
dnotint
endtopubli
shandtowhom hecoul
dnot
reasonablyhaveforeseent
hewordstobepubli
shed.SeeHuthv.Huthorwher
eathir
dpart
y
unexpectedlyover
hearsthedef
endant.

SI
TUATI
ONSTHATWOULDAMOUNTTOPUBLI
CATI
ONARE:

Wor
dswr
it
tenonpostcar
doropenmessage

Def
amatorymessagepl
acedi
nanenv
elopeandaddr
essedt
othewr
ongper
son.SeeHebdi
tchv
.
Macl
lwai
ne(1894)2QB54

Speaki
ngi
nal
oudv
oiceagai
nstt
hepl
aint
if
fsot
hatpeopl
enear
bycanhear
.Whi
tev
.J.FSt
one

Sendingalet
tertothepl
aint
if
finci
rcumst
anceswheni
tisl
i
kel
ytobeopenedbyat
hir
dpar
ty.
Pull
manv .Hi
ll(1891)1QB524

Maki
ngdef
amat
oryst
atement
stot
hespouseoft
hepl
aint
if
f

MALI
CE;

Inmanyar easofl awoft ort,thepr esenceorabsenceofmal iceisirrel

evantandi fitisrelevant
,
i
tmayonl ygot oenhanci ngt heamountr ecov er
ableindamages.Howev er,i
ndef amat i
on
acti
ons,itmaybeespeci all
yi mportanttoconsi derwhet herthestatementwaspubl i
shed
malici
ouslynotonl yt oallowt heplaintif
ftorecov erahigherr ewardofdamagesbutbecausei t
i
sanecessar yelementi nt hel awitself
.Mal i
ceasi tisusei nthelawofdef amat i
onmeanst hat
thepubli
cationwasmadespi t
efull
yorwi thil
l-wil
lorrecklessnessast owhet heritwast rueor
fal
se.Thebadf eel
ingmusthav eledt othewor dsbei ngpubl i
shedandmusti nparti
cularhav e
beendirectedt owardst hepl aint
if
f.Not ethatthepr esenceofmal i
cewi lldestroythedef ences
ofjust
if
ication,unintenti
onal defamat ion,faircommentont hemat terofpubl i
cinterestand
quali
fi
edpr ivi
lege.
DEFENCES

Unintenti
onalDef
amati
on:Thi
sdef
encedoesnotavai
ladef
endantatcommonl
awi
nanact
ion
forl
ibelorsl
ander
.SeeHul
ton&Cov.Jones(
1910)AC20HL

Notealsothatbyvi
rt
ueofSecti
on6ofDefamat i
onlaw1961forLagosst
ate,
adef encei
s
pr
ovidedaslongasthewordswerepubli
shedinnocent
ly.I
nst
anceswher
ewor dsarepubl
ished
i
nnocentl
ywi t
hint
hestat
utor
ydefi
nit
ionare:

-
Stat
ement
smusthav
ebeenmadei
nnocent
ly.

-Thewordswerenotdefamatoryonthef
aceofthem andthepubli
sherdidnotknowofany
cir
cumstancesbyvi
rtueofwhichtheymi
ghtbeunderstoodtobedefamatoryofthepl
aint
if
f.I
n
eit
hercase,t
hepubl
ishermusthaveexer
cisedal
lreasonabl
ecareinrel
ati
ontothepubli
cati
on.

-I
fthedefendanti
sprepar
edtoclaimthatt
hewordswerepubl
ishedi
nnocently
,he/shemay
makeanof ferofamendswhichincl
udesanoff
ertopubl
ishasuit
abl
ecorrecti
onandapologyor
totakereasonabl
estepst
onotif
ypersonstowhom copi
eshavebeendist
ribut
edthatthewords
areall
egedtobedefamatory
.

-
Ift
heof
ferofamendi
saccept
ed,
ther
eisabart
ofur
theract
ionf
ordef
amat
ion.

-
Ift
heof
ferofamendi
srej
ect
ed,
ther
ewi
l
lbeadef
encei
fthedef
endantcanpr
ove:

Thatt
hepubl
i
cat
ionwasi
nnocentandt
her
ewasnonegl
i
gence

Thatt
heof
ferofamendswasmadeassoonaspr
act
icabl
eaf
tert
hecompl
aint

Thati
fthedef
endantwasnott
heauthorofst
atement
,thatt
hedef
endantort
heaut
horwho
madethestat
ementmadeitwit
houtmali
ce.

I
nnocentDisseminat
ion:Thedef enceofinnocentdi
sseminat
ioni
sdesignedtoprotectthose
whoar eaut
horsorpublishersofli
belssuchasbookseller
s(whosel
ll
ibelousmat er
ial
s),
l
ibrari
esormuseumswhi chexhi
bitli
bell
ousgoodsorv endor
swhosellli
belousnewspapers.
SeethecaseofVizetel
lyv .Mudi
’sselect
slibr
ariesl
td(
1500)2QB170.Seef urt
herAwolowov .
Kingswaystor
esltd(
1968)2ANLRpg217

Justi
fi
cati
onofTr ut
h:Ift
hest
atementmadeaboutt
hepl ai
nti
ffi
str
ue,anact
ionf
ordef
amati
on
cannotsucceed.Thi
sisnotwi
thst
andi
ngthatt
hedefendantwasacti
ngduetomali
ceorsome
i
mpr opermot i
ves.SeeOnwuchekwav .Onov o(1974)12CCHCJ1919.I tmusthowev erbenoted
thatt hebur denofpr oofi sont hedef endantbecauset hel awpr esumest hati tisf alse.Note
furthert hati ti
ssuf f
icienti fthedef endantpr oveshisst atementt obet ruei nsubst ance.Inother
wor ds, i
ft hest atementi si naccur at
eonl yinmi nordetails,thedef encewi l
lstillsucceed.See
Edwar dsv .Bel l(
1824)130ER.Not efurtherthatwher et hedef endantfail
st oest abl ishthe
defenceofj ustif
icat
ionpl eaded, thefail
urewi l
lusuall
yi nflateanydamagesawar dedagai nst
him.Thecour ttr
eatingi tasanaggr avati
onoft heoriginal inj
ury.SeeEy ov .InstaNi geria
Informat ionSer vi
ce( 1963)TENLR144at148.Not ehowev ert
hatatcommonl aw,t hedef ence
ofjust if
icationwi llf
ail al
toget herifthedef endantfai
ledev erychar geofthedef amat ory
all
egat ion.Not ealsot hatt hi
sr ulehasbeenmodi f
iedbySect i
on7ofdef amat ionl aw1961
appl i
cabl einLagosandi nv ari
ousdef amat i
onlawsoft heol dwest ernandol dEast er nstates
whi chcont ainsidentical provisions.

Notef
inal
l
yt hatwher
ethedef
endantr
epeatsadef
amator
yst
atementor
igi
nall
ymadeby
someoneelse,hemustpr
ovethatt
hestat
ementwast
rueandnotmerel
ythati
twasmade.

FairComment:Thi
sdefenceisdesi
gnedtoprot
ectstat
ementsofopi
niononmatt
ersofpubl
i
c
i
nterestandi
tisfr
equent
lyrel
i
edonbyt hepr
essthoughiti
snottheexcl
usi
ver
eserveoft
he
press.

Ther
equi
rementf
ort
hisdef
encei
sthati
tisonl
yappl
i
cabl
einmat
ter
sofpubl
i
cint
erestl
i
ke

Gov
taf
fai
rs,

Admi
nist
rat
ionofj
ust
ice,
aff
air
sofpubl
i
cinst
it
uti
ons,

Managementandaf
fai
rsofpubl
i
cinst
it
uti
ons.Seet
hecaseofNt
hendav
.Tal
abi

Chur
chmat
ter
s.Seet
hecaseofOkev
.Gansal
l
o

Conductofpr
ivat
ebusi
nesseswhi
chaf
fect
sthecommuni
tyatl
arge.Hi
tt
onv
.Nor
thEast
ern
New

Any
thi
ngwhi
chmayf
air
lybesai
dtoi
nvi
tecomment
sorchal
l
engepubl
i
cat
tent
ion.

Al
so,t
hest
atementmustbeacommentoropi
nionandnotanasser
ti
onoff
act
.

Thecommentmustal
sobebasedonf
act
ssetoutaccur
atel
y.SeeBakar
ev.Ol
umi
deand
Afr
icanPr
essLt
dv.I
kej
iani
DefenceofAbsol
utepri
vi
lege:Cert
ainoccasi
onsaboundwhenthelawregar
dsf r
eedom of
speechasessent
ialandprovi
desadefenceofabsolut
epri
vi
legewhichcanneverbedefeat
ed
nomat t
erhowfal
seodef amatorythestat
ementmaybeandhowev ermali
ciousl
yithasbeen
made.

Communicat
ionscover
edbythedefenceofabsolut
eprivi
l
egei
sst
atementmadei
nthecour
se
ofj
udi
cial
proceedi
ngsbyj
udges,juri
sts.SeFol
eyev .Asf
our

Not
ethatthepr
ivi
l
egeext
endst
oot
hert
ri
bunal
srecogni
zedbyl
aw.SeeMaj
ekodunmi
v.
Ol
opade.

OCCUPI
ER’
SLI
ABI
LITY

Occupier’
sli
abil
i
tyi
sthetor
twhichdealswit
hthedutyofcar
eofanoccupierorcont
roll
erofa
pr
emi ses,f
ixedormovabl
estr
ucturestoper
son’
swhov i
sit
sorent
erther
eon,othert
han
cr
iminals.I
tiswort
hytonotet
hattherearet
hreecat
egori
esofper
sonthatcancomei ntothe
pr
emi sesofanoccupi
er.

WHOI
SANOCCUPI
ER?

I
ntheEngl
ishcaseofWheatv .Lacon(1966)AC552HL,i
twasheldt
hatanoccupi
eri
saperson
whohaspossession,occupat
ion,useorsomedegreeofcont
rol
ofaland,
premi
ses,f
ixedor
movabl
estruct
ures.Thus,anoccupierneedsnotbeanowner
.

Anoccupi
erdoesnotal
soneedt
obephy
sical
l
ypr
esenti
nthepr
emi
ses,
tober
egar
dedasan
occupi
er

THELAWSGOVERNI
NGOCCUPI
ER’
SLI
ABI
LITY

I
nNi
ger
ia,
thel
awsgov
erni
ngoccupi
er’
sli
abi
l
ityar
ecommonl
awandst
atut
orypr
ovi
sions.

Atcommonl aw,thel
iabi
li
tyofanoccupi
ertoapersoncomingint
ohispremi
ses,dependson
thecategor
yofentr
antthepersonf
all
sint
o.Thecategor
iesofent
rantr
ecogni
zedatcommon
l
awar e;

I
NVI
TEES

Thi
sisaper
soni
nvi
tedt
oent
erapr
oper
tybyanoccupi
erf
oracommoni
nter
estbet
weenhi
m
andt
heoccupi
er.

Atcommonl aw,anoccupi
erhasadutyt
oexer
ciser
easonabl
ecaref
orthesaf
etyofhisi
nvi
tees
fr
om dangerswhichheknowsoroughtt
oknowabout.Thi
swastheposi
ti
onofthelawinSt
one
v.Taf
fee(1974)3AER1016CA.

N.
B:Theinvi
teei
sal
soexpect
edt
oexer
ciser
easonabl
ecar
eforhi
sownsaf
etywhi
l
eont
he
pr
emises.

LI
CENCEES

Ali
cenceei
saper sonwhohasthepermi
ssi
onofanoccupi
ert
obeonapr
emi
sesf
orapur
pose
i
nwhichtheoccupierhasnoi
nter
est
.

However
,amereli
censei
sal
waysrevocabl
e.Thegeneral
rul
eher
ehowev erist
hatal
i
cencee
mustt
akethepr
emisesashefi
ndsit
.Thisi
ssubjectt
oadutyontheoccupiert
o:

Warntheli
cenceeofconceal
eddanger
sbyput
ti
ngupnot
icesl
i
ke“
bewar
eofdogs”
,“bewar
eof
snakes”
,et
c.

Adut
ynott
osett
raps

Adut
ynott
oinj
uret
hel
i
cenceei
ntent
ional
l
yorr
eckl
essl
y.

3.
TRESPASSERS

At
respasseri
sapersonwhoent
ersori
nter
fer
eswi
tht
hel
andedpr
oper
tyofanot
herper
son
wi
thoutl
egalj
ust
if
icat
ion.

I
nAddie&sonsv.Dumbr eck,
itwasheldthatthedutyofcar
eofanoccupi
ert
oatrespasseri
s
nott
omali
ciousl
yinj
urehim.Atrespasserhoweverenter
salandathi
sownri
sk.

STATUTORYPROVI
SIONSONOCCUPI
ER’
SLI
ABI
LITY

Thetwomai nstatut
esher earet
heEnglishOccupier’
sli
abi
li
tystat
uteof1958andEnglish
Occupier’
sli
abi
l
itystat
uteof1984.Thest at
uteaboli
shedthedisti
nct
ionbetweenthecategori
es
ofentrant
sandstreamlinedthevar
iousdutiesappli
cabl
etoeachcategory.Thest
atut
eal so
i
ntroducesanewcat egoryofent
rantscall
ed“ v
isi
tor
s”.

TheLawRefor
m(Tort
s)Law,LagosSt at
eismodell
edont
hisEngl
i
shstat
uteandi
tisappl
i
cabl
e
toev
eryst
atei
nNiger
ia.However
,thatofLagosi
sthemostpr
ominent
.

Sect
ion7(2)oft
heLagosStatel
awdef
inesa“
Visi
tor
”as“
per
sonswhowoul
datcommonl
aw
betr
eatedasinvi
teesorl
i
cencees.
”

DEFENCESFOROCCUPI
ER’
SLI
ABI
LITY
Thathegav
eadequat
enot
iceorwar
ningofdanger

Consent

Actofst
ranger

ActofGod

Cont
ri
but
orynegl
i
gence

DECEI
T

Theruleofl
awinHedleyBr
yneLtdv.Hell
erPart
nersLt d(1964)AC465hol dsawayher
e.Thi
sis
totheeff
ectt
hatapersonwhomakesacar el
essmi sstat
ementt oanothermaybeli
abl
etothat
otherper
soninnegl
i
genceforl
osssuff
eredasar esultofrel
ianceuponthestat
ement.

Accordi
ngt
oPr ofJohnSalmond,t
hetortofdeceitconsi
stsi
ntheactofmaki
ngawil
l
full
yfal
se
stat
ementwit
ht hei
ntentt
hatthePl
aint
iffshal
lactinrel
i
anceonit
,andwit
hther
esul
tthathe
doessoactandsuffer
sharminconsequence.

Asawrong,deceitcutsacr
ossmanyareasofl
awsuchastort
,cont
ract
,cr
imi
nall
aw,etc.Thus,
afal
ser
epresentati
onormi sr
epr
esent
ati
onmaycreat
econcurr
entr
ight
sofact
ionint
ort,
br
eachofcontr
act ,
etc.

Theessenceofdeceit
,whet
heri
nlawoftort
,cont
ractorcr
imi
nal
lawi
sfr
audi
ethePl
aint
if
f
wasdefraudedordupedandhesuff
eredl
oss.

Whencompar edwi
ththetortofnegli
gentmi sstatementunderHedl eyBry nev.Hell
erPar t
ners
Ltd,thedev elopmentofdeceitasasepar atetortdat esbackt othedecisiononPar sleyv.
Freeman( 1789)100ER450.I ncaso,theDef endantf alselyr
epresentedtot hePlai
ntif
fthata
certainmanwascr editwort
hyandt hatthePl ai
ntiffcoul dsaf
elysellgoodst ohim oncredit.The
Plai
nt i
ffsuffereddamageast hesaidper sonwasunabl etopay.ThePl ai
nt i
ffsuedthe
Defendantf ordeceit
.Held:t
heDef endantwasl i
ablef orthetortofdeceit
, forafal
se
representati
ononwhi chthePl ai
nti
ffr
eliedonandsuf fereddamage.

ELEMENTSOFTORTOFDECEI
T

Thatt
heDef
endantmadeaf
alser
epr
esent
ati
onoff
act
s

Thatt
heDef
endantknewt
hatt
her
epr
esent
ati
onwasf
alse

Thatt
heDef
endanti
ntendedt
hePl
aint
if
frel
yont
hei
nfor
mat
ion

Thatt
hePl
aint
if
frel
i
edont
hei
nfor
mat
ion

Thatt
hePl
aint
if
fsuf
fer
eddamage
*
FALSEREPRESENTATI
ON

Afalserepr
esentati
onmaybebywor dswhet herwrit
tenorspokenorbyanyconduct .A
si
tuati
onoff al
serepresentati
onbywor dswasseeni nJamesv .Mid-mot orsNig.coLtd(1978)2
LRN187SC, wherethepl ai
nti
ffcustomerboughtamot orvehi cl
eonhi r
epur chasefrom the
Defendantcompany .Subsequent l
y,themanageroft heDef endantt oldhimt hataspartofthe
condit
ionsforit
’sdeli
very,t
hePl ai
ntiffhastoinsurethev ehicle.ThePl aint
if
fpaidapr emium
andhewasi ssuedacov ernotebyanon- exi
stentcompany .ThePl ainti
ffsuedfordamages.
Held:t
heDef endantcompanywasv i
car i
ousl
yl i
abl
efordecei tcommi t
tedbyt hemanager .

Wor t
hytonotei
st hatasageneralrul
e,meresil
encei
snotact
ionabl
eintor
tofdeceitassi
lence
alonedoesnotamountt ofraud,
exceptastat
utemakescer
tai
ndiscl
osuresmandatory.Where
therei
ssil
ence,t
heapplicablepr
inci
plei
s“caveatempt
or”i
s“l
etthebuyerbewar
e”.

Al
so,
acti
veconceal
menthowevermaybeasuf
fi
cientgr
oundf
orl
egal
act
ioni
ndecei
tasseen
i
nDerr
yv.Peek(1889)14AC337.

*
THATTHEDEFENDANTKNEW THATTHEREPRESENTATI
ONWASFALSE

ForaDef endanttobeliabl
ef ordeceit,
theDefendantmusthavemadethedecei
tful
statement
knowingl
yorwi thoutbeli
efinit’
struthorreckl
essl
y.Thatis,t
hePl
aint
if
fmustprovethatthe
Defendantdidnothonest l
ybelievethestatementtobetrue.

Therequi
r ementthattheDefendantknewt hathi
sstat
ementwasf al
sewaslaiddownbyLor d
Herschel
linDerryv.Peeksayingthat;“
fraudisprov
edwheni ti
sshownthatafalse
repr
esentati
onhasbeenmadeknowi ngl
yorwi t
houtbel
iefi
nit’
str
uthorr
ecklesslycar
eless
whetheri
tbet r
ueorf alse.
”

*
THATTHEDEFENDANTI
NTENDEDTHEPLAI
NTI
FFTORELYONTHEI
NFORMATI
ON

Her
e, t
hePlai
nti
ffmustpr
ovethatt
hestat
ementwasmadebyt
heDef
endantwi
tht
hei
ntent
ion
t
hatitshoul
dber el
i
edonoracteduponbythePl
aint
if
f.

However,i
tisnotnecessar
ytoshowt hatt
herewasani
ntent
iont
ocausedamaget
othe
Pl
aint
if
f.Anintent
ionthatt
hePlai
nti
ffshoul
drel
yonthestat
ementi
ssuff
ici
ent
.

I
nLandridgev.Levy(1837)150ER,thefatherofthePlai
ntiffbargai
nedwit
htheDef endantto
buyagunf orhi
mselfandhissons.TheDef endantfal
selywar r
antedtheguntohavebeenmade
byareputabl
efir
m wel l
knownforquali
ty.Whereas,intr
utht hegunwasbad, unsaf
eandnot
madebyt hecompany .Hel
d:Hewasl i
ableintortofdeceitasthestatementoftheDefendantas
tothesoundnessofthegunwasi nt
endedt obecommuni catedandacteduponbyt hePlaint
if
f.

*
RELI
ANCEBYTHEPLAI
NTI
FF
Tosucceedi nanacti
onfordecei
t,t
hePlaint
iffmustpr
ov ethathereli
edonoracteduponthe
falser
epresent
ationt
ohisdetr
iment.Here,i
tisnotadefencet hatt
hePlai
nti
ffcoul
dhave
discov
eredthetrueposi
ti
onofthestatementmadeuponi nv esti
gat
ion.

I
nSulev .Aromir
e, t
heDefendantsoldacert
ainlandtothePlaint
iffandi
ssuedhi
m at i
tl
edeed
ofanentir
elydif
ferentpar
celofl
and.Inanactionfordeceit
,itwasheldt
hattheDefendantwas
l
iabl
e.Further
mor e,i
tisnotadefencethatt
hePl ai
nti
ffcoul
dhav emadeproperi
nvesti
gati
on.

*
THATTHEPLAI
NTI
FFSUFFEREDDAMAGE

Thetor
tofdecei
tisnotact
ionabl
eper
seandsot
hePl
aint
if
fmustpr
ovet
hathesuf
fer
edsome
act
ualdamage.

I
nmostcases,t
hedamagewi
l
lconsi
sti
nfi
nanci
all
oss,
butt
her
eisnot
hingt
opr
eventr
ecov
ery
ofdamagest
oproper
ty.

DEFENCESFORTHETORTOFDECEI
T

Wher
ethepar
tyt
hatmadet
her
epr
esent
ati
onmadei
tingoodf
ait
handhonestbel
i
efi
nit
’st
rut
h

Wherethepar
tywhom r
epresent
ati
oni
smadet
oact
ual
l
yknewt
hatt
her
epr
esent
ati
onwas
f
alseandcoul
dnothavebeenacti
ngonit
.

I
ftheDef
endantcanshowt
hatPl
aint
if
fdi
dnotsuf
feranydamage

Wher
ethePl
aint
if
fhasanobl
i
gat
iont
over
if
yinf
ormat
ionbutdi
dn’
t.

Wher
ethedef
endanti
snotunderanyobl
i
gat
iont
orev
eal
anyi
nfoandkeepsqui
et.

REMEDI
ESav
ail
abl
ear
ereci
ssi
onanddamages

PASSI
NGOFF

Passingof
fist
hefal
serepr
esentat
ionofone’
spr
oductorbusi
nessast
hatofanot
herper
son,
ther
ebydecei
vi
ngbuyer
stopatroni
zeit
.

Thetortofpassi
ngoffisdesignedtoprotectaperson’
sbusinessi
nter
estfr
om t
heunfai
rtr
ade
pract
icesandsharppract
icesofotherpersons.I
t’
sobject
iveistopr
otectr
eput
ati
onand
Goodwi l
labusi
nesshasbui l
tupforit
self
.

WHENDOESACTI
ONFORPASSI
NGOFFLI
E?
I
nthecaseofWarni
nkv.Townsend&Sons,
Lor
dDiplockst
atedFI
VEchar
act
eri
sti
csor
gui
del
i
nesfordet
ermini
ngwhenacti
onl
iesi
npassi
ngoffwhichar
e:

Whet
hert
her
eisami
srepr
esent
ati
on

Madebyt
heDef
endanti
nthecour
seoft
rade

Topr
ospect
ivecust
omer
s

Whi
chi
scal
cul
atedt
oinj
uret
hebusi
nessandGoodwi
l
lofanot
herper
son;
and

Whi
chcausedamaget
othatper
son’
sbusi
nessandGoodwi
l
lorwi
l
lli
kel
ytodoso.

COMMONFORMSOFPASSI
NGOFF

Thecommonf
ormsofpassi
ngof
far
e:

1.
TRADI
NGWI
THANAMERESEMBLI
NGTHATOFTHEPLAI
NTI
FF

2.
MARKETI
NGAPRODUCTASTHATOFTHEPLAI
NTI
FF

3.
MARKETI
NGGOODSWI
THANAMERESEMBLI
NGTHATOFTHEPLAI
NTI
FF’
SGOODS

4.
IMI
TATI
NGTHEAPPEARANCEOFTHEPLAI
NTI
FF’
SPRODUCT

5.
MARKETI
NGPRODUCTSWI
THTHEPLAI
NTI
FF’
STRADEMARKORI
TSI
MITATI
ON

LI
MITATI
ONSTOPASSI
NGOFF

I
tisnotpassi
ngof
ftomarketgoodsunderpurelydescr
ipt
ivenameindicat
ingt
henat
ureoft
he
goodssol
dandnotthatt
heyarethemerchandiseofanyparti
cul
arperson.

Iti
snotpassingofftoimi
tatetheappearanceorshapeoft
hePlai
nti
ff
’sproductwher
esuch
appearanceorshapeisnecessaryforthebet
terper
for
manceofthetypeofproductf
orgr
eat
er
eff
ici
encyinhandli
ngorprocessingit
.

InJ.BWill
iamscov.Bronnl
ey&co.Ltd,anacti
onbythePlai
nti
ffcompanytor est
raint
he
Defendantfr
om usi
ngthenormalshapeofashavi
ngstickcontai
nertopackageit’
sbrandof
shavingst
ickfai
l
ed.Thiswasal
sothepositi
onoflawinTreborNig.Lt
dv.AssociatedIndust
ri
es
Ltd(1972)NNLR360.

Wr
it
tenby
;

Fel
i
xChi
bui
ke(
uni
ver
sit
yofcal
abar
)

07089621300