TRESPASS TO PERSON
Trespass is any unlawful, unwarranted interference with the body of person
It is divided into 3 parts 1) Assault
2)Battery
3)False Imprisonment
1. Assault: It is placing a person in apprehension of fear or stock that horm will be done to
him/her Assautt is inminent battery. Stephens v Myers - Dispute mecting, people held him. R v St.
George - Pointing an unloaded gun at a person whe doen know it's not loaded.
As a general rule , words alone doesn't constitute assault. The intention to apply force must be
shown by some action or gesture.
Exceptions To The Rule:
● Janvier & Sweonay: Lady has a france, foreigner and
was threatened by someone since har france coas
wanted by the English government.
● Words Alone Can Constitute assault: R vs Boston:
Made silent calls and breathed heavily to the victims.
● Words can cause negative assault as words can
reduce apprehension of fear placed on the plaintiff. Tuberville v. Savage: Defendant placed his
hand on his sword (as if it was not assize time( court session time), I will not take such language
from you.
R v Light: Husband placed a sword on the wife's neck and said " If not for police, he would have
killed her( The Court
held that was assault)
The distinction between 1 2 is that allen though (2) was a negative word, he put his wife in
apprehension or fear.
What the court will consider that will amount to assault is what will put a reasonable puson in
fear or apprehension Brady v Schatzel: A lady was pointed a gun, though she was fearless, she
brought an action and the court looked at the objective point and not individual view. The court
looked at If such action will reasonable man in fear even though plaintiff was fearless
Case Study: Hurst v Future Theatre Ltd: For all trespass, intention is not a defence. It is irrelevant .
A joke is not also a defence.
2. BATTERY : It is the unlawful, unwarranted, forceful and violent tort that has to do with the
body of a person ; it need not be bodily contact only because causing the plaintiff to come in
contact with some material object like heat, light, water etc will amount to battery. Battery need
not be strictly violent conduct therefore to kiss a woman against her will amounts to to battery. R
vs Chief Constable OF
So Essentially battery is:
1. Unlawful application of force or violence on another person without the person's consent,
2. However, slight the degree of force.
3. Some form of contact, direct or indirect is necessary 4. Bodily injury need not result.
5. The defendant must have acted intentionally or negligently.
Battery is basically trespass to a person's body and Examples are:
1. Beating with a stick, pouring water on a person, or shooting a person with a gun.(Nwankwa v
Ajaegho, Fowler vs Lobbing)
2. Knocking a person down, or running a person down with a motor vehicle.
3. Spitting on a person's face or throwing stone at a person. See R v Lynsey (1995)
4. Removing a chair from under a person who thereby falls to the ground.
5. Pulling a person away from something for his own good.
6. Setting a dog to attack a person, etc. See Lawal v DSP (1975)
There is battery where for instance C without lawful justification slaps D on the face, or pushes D.
So also it is battery to cut a plaintiffs hair without his consent, or to wrongfully take a person's
fingerprint. However, where a person has been detained, charged or told that he will be charged
with an offence punishable with imprisonment, the fingerprints may be taken without consent
under criminal
law.
7. Nash v Shein (dyeing of hair instead of pem)
8. Okekearu against Tanko (It is considered battery for a
doctor to conduct surgery on a person without the
person's consent.
Battery can be committed against a person that is asleep,
unconscious or in coma.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
It refers to any unlawful and unwarranted restraint of Liberty or right of movement of person.
For the court to hold false Imprisonment, the restraint must be total and complete.
On the authority of Birel & Jones, John Lewis & Co Limited vs Timms, Gurton & Davies.
Note: It is also important to note that false imprisonment need not be within the confines of any
four (4) walls, meaning that a person can be falsely imprisoned even in an open field. See the
case of Warner v Reddiford,
The shortest period of restraint or confinement is also false imprisonment. There is no fixed
period before which an NO action can be founded in false imprisonment. It is also important to
note that the plaintiff need not be aware of the false imprisonment. (Moering Graham white
Aviation Co.) Note: It is also important to note that this tort can be committed without the use of
force (Aigoro & Anebunwa)
The Purpose of the Law of False Imprisonment
The purpose of the tort of false imprisonment is to protect the right to personal liberty and right
to freedom of movement. Thus, the purpose of the tort of false imprisonment is to protect the
fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement from being taken away by
government or any person. The presence of ill-will or malice is not a relevant element of this tort.
However, where intention or malice is proved by a plaintiff, punitive damages may be awarded in
addition to compensatory or nominal damages.
The case of John Lewis & Co. Ltd v Timms (1952)
The plaintiff, a lady and her daughter were detained for sometime in a supermarket by its
security men on suspicion of shop lifting. It was later discovered that she was innocent of the
suspicion. The House of Lords held that there was false imprisonment and she was entitled to
recover damages.
The Remedies for Trespass to Person
A plaintiff in a claim for trespass is entitled to a number of remedies. These include:
1. A declaratory judgement, declaring the rights of the plaintiff to enjoy the fundamental right to
dignity of human person, right to personal liberty, right to freedom of
movement and so forth as guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution. See the following cases:
Shugaba v Minister of Internal Affairs (1981) 2 NCLR 459;
2. Injunction
3. Binding over to keep the peace for a specified period
4. Award of damages
5. Writ of habeas corpus. See Agbaje v COP (1969)
When action is filed in court for the release of a detained person and a writ of habeas corpus is
claimed, upon establishing a prima facie case that the person has been unlawfully detained, a
writ of habeas corpus may be issued by court, commanding the captors or custodians to bring the
prisoner to court, and then proceed to examine whether there is any legal ground for the
detention of the prisoner and in the absence of any lawful ground for his detention set him free.
6. Apology. See Dele Giwa v IGP, supra.
Where an apology is also claimed for unwarranted and unlawful trespass to person, especially a
false imprisonment, a court may order that apology be made by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Such apology is usually tendered to the plaintiff in the mode directed by the court, such as
writing a letter of apology to the plaintiff and also publicising it on radio, television, newspaper
and so forth.
