- The law of tort under the Nigerian Law
- The intentional and unintentional tort
- The various damages a tortfeasor can pay to a victim
THE LAW OF TORT UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW
In Nigerian law, the law of torts deals with civil wrongdoings that results in injury to a person or his or her property. It contains various principles and cases that form the basis of liability for wrongful acts. We will be breaking down the law of tort below;
1. Elements of infringement
A. Duty of care
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): This case established the principle that one party owes another party a duty of care to avoid foreseeable harm.
Neighbor Doctrine: From Donoghue v Stevenson also defines who qualifies as a “neighbor” and is owed a duty of care.
B. Breach of obligation
Bolton v. Stone (1951): This case illustrates the concept of breach of duty when a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of harm.
C. Causal relationship
Peterside v. Onwuchekwa (2018): This case emphasized the need for a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury to be liable.
D. Damages
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880): This case emphasized damages as compensation for injury suffered.
2. Types of infringement
A. Negligence
UAC v Macfoy (1961): This case is showing negligence where no duty of care was established.
Economic negligence: Cases involving negligent conduct causing financial loss, such as UAC v. Macfoy.
B. Nuisance
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): This case established liability for damage caused by the escape of items brought by the defendant onto his land which might cause damage.
C. Intrusion
Okafor v. Nweke (2007): This case shows trespass on land and the remedies available.
D. defamation
Newswatch Communications Ltd. v. Att. Gen. Federation (2019): This case is addressing defamation and the importance of protecting reputation.
3. Defenses in Tort Law
A. Agreement
Ramsay v. Roberts (1980): This case demonstrated that a plaintiff may not be liable if he agrees with the defendant's conduct.
B. Contributory negligence
Doe v. Abubakar (2009): This case established a reduction in damages if the plaintiff caused his own injury through negligence.
4. Vicarious liability
Lulu Briggs v. Minte & Ors (2016): This case demonstrated the principle that an employer can be held liable for torts committed by its employees in the course of employment.
5. Limitations
A. Statute of limitations
Limitation laws sets the time limits within which legal action must be taken for certain infringements.
B. Sovereign Immunity
State v. Mowarin (2001): This case explored the limitations of suing the government in tort cases.
THE INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL TORT
THE INTENTIONAL TORT
Intentional torts in Nigerian law include conduct that intentionally causes harm to another person or his or her property. The following is a summary of the chapters and cases related to intentional infringement:
1. Assault
Article 252 of the Criminal Code: defines assault as the threat or attempt to unlawfully use force against another person.
R v. Omokaro (1961): stated the requirement of intent to cause fear of immediate harm from attack.
2. Battery
Article 351 of the Criminal Code: defines assault as the unlawful use of force against another person.
Ezeiruka v. Onwusonye (1990): emphasized the need for direct or indirect physical contact of batteries.
3. Unlawful imprisonment
Article 257 of the Criminal Code: Defines unlawful imprisonment as an unlawful restriction of a person’s freedom of movement.
R v. Okoro (1974): Proof that imprisonment can be physical imprisonment or imprisonment by threat and that intention is crucial to unlawful imprisonment.
4. Trespass on land
Section 61 of the Property and Conveyancing Act: Deals with unauthorized access to another person's land.
Okafor v. Nweke (2007): Demonstrated the infringement of land title and the remedies available.
5. Misappropriation of movable property
Common Law Principles: Involves interfering with another person's personal property.
Yusuf v. Mohammed (2014): Elucidated the concept of trespass to movable property and the need to show interference or deprivation of property.
6. Conversion
Common Law Principles: Relates to wrongful interference with or deprivation of another person’s property.
Bello v. Eweka (2011): Emphasis on wrongful exercise of title to another’s property as conversion.
7. Defamation
Common law principles and related statutes: Involving misrepresentations that damage a person's reputation.
Newswatch Communications Ltd. v. Att. Gen. Federation (2019): Addressing defamation and the importance of protecting reputation.
eight. malicious prosecution
Common Law Principle: Involves the initiation of legal proceedings without reasonable grounds and malicious intent.
Ukeje v. Obiekwe (2002): demonstrated the elements of malicious prosecution, including lack of reasonable and probable cause.
Intentional torts involve conduct that intentionally causes harm or violates the rights of another person. As mentioned above, there are cases and legal provisions in Nigerian law outlining the parameters and liability regarding intentional infringement.
THE UNINTENTIONAL TORT
Unintentional torts arise primarily from negligence and involve inadvertently causing injury or damage to another person or their property due to a failure to exercise reasonable care. The following is a summary of sections and cases in Nigerian law relating to unintentional infringement:
1. Negligence
A. Duty of care
Common law and statutory law: implies a legal obligation to act reasonably to avoid foreseeable harm.
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): Established a duty of care to “neighbors” and the foreseeability of injury.
B. Breach of obligation
Bolton v Stone (1951): Breach of duty is demonstrated when a reasonable person could have foreseen the risk of harm.
C. Causal relationship
Peterside v. Onwuchekwa (2018): Emphasized the need for a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury to be liable.
D. Damages
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880): Emphasized damages as compensation for injury suffered.
2. Economic negligence
UAC v Macfoy (1961): Manifestation of negligence causing economic loss without establishing a duty of care.
3. Vicarious liability
Lulu Briggs v. Minte & Ors (2016): demonstrated the principle that an employer can be held liable for torts committed by its employees in the course of employment.
4. Contributory negligence
Doe v. Abubakar (2009): Established a reduction in damages if the plaintiff caused his own injury through negligence.
5. Negligence defense
A. Agreement
Ramsay v. Roberts (1980): Demonstrated that a plaintiff may not be liable if he agrees with the defendant's conduct.
6. Statute of limitations
Limitation laws: Set the time limits within which legal action must be taken for certain torts, including negligence.
7. Sovereign immunity
State v. Mowarin (2001): Explored the limitations of suing the government in negligence cases.
THE VARIOUS DAMAGES A TORTFEASOR CAN PAY TO A VICTIM
In tort law, damages are monetary compensation paid by a tortfeasor (defendant) to a victim (plaintiff) for suffering harm. The following are the various types of damages that a tortfeasor can pay to a victim, along with relevant provisions and cases under Nigerian law:
1. Damages
A. Special damages
Ezeiruka v. Onwusonye (1990): Prove the specific economic losses suffered by the plaintiff, such as medical expenses, loss of income, etc.
B. General damages
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880): Emphasis on non-pecuniary damages such as pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
2. Nominal damages
Common Law Principle: Awarded to a plaintiff when her rights have been violated but no substantial harm or loss has been proven.
Folawiyo v. Folawiyo (2007): Demonstrated the symbolic nature of nominal damages in recognition of legal wrong.
3. Serious damage
Common law principle: An award is awarded to a plaintiff when the defendant's conduct aggravates the plaintiff's injury or causes additional suffering to the plaintiff.
Newswatch Communications Ltd. v. Att. Gen. Federation (2019): Resolved the issue of defamation and the need for additional damages due to the nature of the harm caused.
4. Punitive/Exemplary Damages
Common law principle: Granted to punish a defendant for egregious conduct and to deter similar conduct.
UAC v. Macfoy (1961): demonstrated the possibility of punitive damages for gross negligence causing economic loss.
5. Restorative damages
Common law principle: aims to restore the plaintiff to the position he was in before the infringement occurred.
Bello v. Eweka (2011): Demonstrated compensatory damages for wrongful deprivation of property.
6. Disdainful damage
Common law principle: Although the court recognizes the plaintiff's entitlement to damages, it awards the plaintiff damages if it disagrees with the plaintiff's conduct.
There is no specific case from Nigeria; common law principles are followed.
7. Future harm
Peterside v. Onwuchekwa (2018): addressed the assessment and award of damages for future losses or expenses resulting from a tort.
No comments:
Post a Comment