ANALYSIS OF THE LIABILITY REGIME FOR TORTS AGAINST PROPERTY IN NIGERIA
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2000-01-19
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Ahmadu Bello University Zaria
Abstract
Torts dealing with property which include trespass to land, nuisance, keeping dangerous
objects (the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher), conversion and detinue, that have significant role
in protecting the interest of owners or possessors of both moveable and immoveable
property. Over the years, these torts have passed through some modifications in the
common law jurisdictions, especially England, Australia, Canada and even the United
States of America. This change in character and landscape which the torts have witnessed
is more or less associated with the change in development of societies. In Nigeria
however, these torts have either remained static without incorporating recent developments
in the areas or confused by the courts in applying the principles applicable to them
wrongly. This research, using a doctrinal method, has taken an in-depth analysis into
liability regime which governs torts against property, more specifically, trespass to land,
especially the doctrine of trespass ab initio, new development in the application of the tort
of nuisance and the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher (keeping dangerous objects) and their
application by the court in Nigeria as well as the application of the torts of conversion and
detinue in Nigeria. The research has through an examination of the relevant literatures and
decisions of courts, shown that the principles of liability in those torts have either been
modified, such as in nuisance and under the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher, or abolished as in
the case of detinue. In Nigeria however, the research finds that, the court could not measure
up with new developments in those torts by still applying the old principles governing
them, while at the same time applying the law governing the tort of trespass ab initio
wrongly. With regards to the application of the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher, the court in
Nigeria, has equated the rule with negligence thereby giving the impression that liability
under the rule could also lead to liability in negligence, which is not correct because the
two are governed by different rules. This is notwithstanding the fact that recent
developments indicate that negligence in some way, plays a significant role in attaching
liability under the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher. The problem here is that the court in Nigeria
is not categorical as to whether or not, it has abolished the rule and therefore, merge it
together with negligence even though in some instances, the approach of the court moves
towards that direction. It has therefore, been recommended that the court in Nigeria should
take pro-active measures towards addressing the anomalies associated with the application
of relevant principles of law governing trespass ab initio, private nuisance, the rule in
Rylands vs Fletcher, conversion and detinue, by for example reversing itself in the case of
Alhaja Silifatou Omotayo vs Co-operative Supply Association (2010)16 NWLR (pt. 1218)
22, take a stand by abolishing the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher and merge it with negligence
for the sake of consistency and clarity in the law as well as re-examine its approach to the
issue of liability in the tort of private nuisance by allowing “reasonableness of the defendants conduct”, to take centre stage in determining whether the defendant is liable or not.