KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

COURSE: LLB

COURSE NAME: LAW OF TORTS 2

LECTURER:

YEAR: 2:1

GROUP 2

NAMES [Link] SIGNITURE

ATWONGIRE DAISY 2024-08-27564
MAGERA EDWARD 2024-08-27540
NYAKATO ANNET 2024-08-27600
NANTABAZI PATRICIA 2024-08-31790
MUBIRU INNOCENT 2024-08-28164
MUTONYI EVET 2024-08-28841
AKAMPURIRA PROSPER 2024-08-27576
KAKYE JANIPHER 2024-08-29224
KALYOWA BRIAN 2024-08-32230
 NATURE OF TORTS
The word’ Tort’ is delivered from the Latin term ‘TORTIUM’ which to twist, crooked, or wrong.
A tort is a civil wrong but not all civil wrongs are torts .It’s the violation of rights of person /
breach of duty towards another.
DEFINITION.
Tort means civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of tort provided
for under section 2(m) of the limitation Act 1963 .
Different academicians have attempted to define the law of tort, but in a glance at all the leading
text books. Each writer has a different formulation and each states that the definition is
unsatisfactory.
In a similar tone prof. sir John w. salmond in his book “Salmond and Heuston law of tort 18th
edition pg. 11.”defines tort as a is civil wrong per which the remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a
trust or other merely equitable obligation .
Winfield defines tort as, tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by
law .This duty towards persons generally on its breach is redressed by an action for unliquidated
damages.
Pollock’s contribution to the definition is an act or omission not merely the breach of a duty
arising out of personal relations or undertaken by a contract which is related to harm suffered
by a determinate person giving rise to a civil remedy which is not an action of contract.
Its exact definition is a matter of great difficulty because torts encompass many different types of
behavior for example;
-Assault
-False imprisonment
-Trespass
-conversion
-Defamation of character
-Negligence
-Nuisance
In order for an act to be a tort there must be three elements;
(I) Wrongful behavior , [Link] international wrong doing or negligent conduct
(exceptions to this is behavior where the defendant is liable without fault –these are
torts of STRICT LIABILITY)
(II) The wrongful behavior must infringe another human beings interest which the law
regards as being worthy of protection. Some interests such as security of the person
and property are considered so important that they receive protection against both
international and negligent infringement.
(III) The claimant is entitled to obtain compensation from the defendants in the form of
damages by taking action in a civil court.

OBJECTIVES OF TORT LAW.

1. To compensate the victim.
The most pronounced objective of tort is to provide a channel for compensating
victims of injury and loss. Tort is also a mean whereby the issues of liability can
be decided and compensation assessed and awarded.
2. Deterrence.
It has been argued that the rules of tort have a deterrent effect which encourages
people to take fewer risks and to conduct their activities more carefully, mindful
of the possible effects on other people and their property. This effect is mainly
focused on a greater awareness of the need for risk management by
manufacturers, employers, health providers among others and is usually
encouraged by insurance companies.
3. Vindication
This refers to protection or assertion of a person’s rights, especially where those
rights have been violated or undermined. It often involves a legal remedy such as
damages or a declaration confirming that the plaintiffs rights and restoring their
reputation, dignity and status. The courts usually award nominal damages (small
amounts) where actual loss isn’t proven, purely to vindicate a right.
4. Loss distribution.
Tort is usually seen as a vehicle for distributing losses suffered as a result of
wrongful activities. In this context, loss means the cost of compensating for harm
suffered. This means redistribution of the cost from the claimant who has been
injured to the defendant or in most cases the defendant’s insurance company.
5. Desire for retribution.
This may be present in the tort system. The people who have been harmed are
sometimes anxious to have a day in court in order to see the perpetrator of their
suffering squirming under cross examinations. In most cases, the only
satisfaction top the claimant lies in the knowledge that the defendant will have
been caused considerable expense and inconvenience.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF TORT.

-To establish liability, three basic elements must generally be proven;

1-Duty of care; the defendant must owe a legal duty to the plaintiff.
In negligence this means that the defendant must have had a responsibility to act (or
not act) in a way that avoids foreseeable harm to others. Still under torts, this may be
a duty not to interfere with another‘s right for example not to assault someone.

2-Breach of duty; the defendant breached that duty by act or omission. It involves the
defendant failing to meet the standard of care required. In addition, this involves
failing to act when a reasonable person would have. It can also refer to deliberate
wrong doing.
Case example; general cleaning corporation ltd v Christmas (1953)
In this case, an employer failed to provide a safety belt for a safe system of work
resulting in consequences arising from this omission.

3-legal remedy; the law of torts provides specific legal remedies to injured parties
when their rights are violated. These remedies can include momentary compensation,
restitution of specific property and court ordered injunctions
The court assesses various factors of liability by applying tests such as directness and
foreseeability to determine the extent of the damage suffered and whether it is too
remote. Only after evaluating these factors will the court provide relief to the
claimant.

4-Caution and damages; the breach caused harm or damage to the claimant. There
must be a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the harm suffered.
In the case of Donoghue v Stephen. Mrs. Donoghue went with a friend to a cafe in
Scotland. Her friend bought her bottle of ginger beer manufacturer by Mr. Stevenson.
The bottle was opaque. After drinking some she poured the rest into the glass and
discovered a decomposed snail in the bottle. She became ill and sued the
manufacturer. The main issue was whether Stevenson owed a duty of care to
Donoghue, even though there was no direct contract between them. The house of the
lord held that Stephen was liable establishing the neighborhood principle.

The two maxims, Damnum sine injuria and injuria sine Damno summaries a variety
of harm and /or damages that are covered by this component element of a tort.
Injuria sine Demno
The maxim illustrates an injury devoid of harm. The of torts applies to this kind of
injury. This saying applies when someone experiences legal harm rather than real
loss. In simple terms when someone else violates his legal rights.
This is an infringement on someone’s inalienable right without any real harm being
done.
An illustration case is Bhim Singh v state of Jammu and Kashmir. The plaintiff who
was a Member of Parliament MP. Was denied entry into the premises of the assembly
election by a police constable. Thereby infringing upon his legal rights.

Damnum sine injuria

Basically this maxim is the opposite of the previous one. It refers to harm without
physical harm. In this case the person experiences genuine loss, which might be
moral or bodily, but their legal rights are not violated. In such instances the plaintiff
has no cause of action since no legal rights have been transgressed.
The case is of Gloucester Grammar school where the defendant established a school
in the same neighborhood as the plaintiff’s school and even lowered the fees. This
was not considered a tort case because the plaintiff suffered only a financial loss, and
none of their legal rights were breached.
The distinction between both of them is as follows
1 In Damnum sine injuria, the plaintiff suffers actual loss and damages,
whereas, in injuria sine Damno, there is no tangible damage or bodily harm.
2 Injuria sine Damno involves a breach of the plaintiff’s duties, whereas
Damnum sine injuria does not include any legal rights being infringed.
3 The plaintiff has the right to file a lawsuit under the injuria sine Damno
theory. Conversely, Damnum sine injuria is not subject to legal action.
4 While Damnum sine injuria addresses moral wrongs, where there may be
injury but no legal infringement, injuria sine Damno relates to legal wrongs.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurman Kaur, Gurman lost
money as a result of vendors stand being moved, which in turn caused her
neighboring company to lose clients. The court decided that although she had
lost anything, there had been no actual harm, and as a result, tort law did not
offer her a remedy.

TYPES OF TORTS.
. International Torts; act done with intent to cause harm (e.g. assault, battery, false
imprisonment, defamation).
.Negligence torts; failure to take reasonable care, resulting in damage (for example;
car accidents, medical malpractice).
.strict liability torts; liability without proof of fault (for example harm from defective
product, dangerous animals)

CHARACTERISTICS OF TORTS.
1 -Torts are civil wrongs; a tort is a private civil wrong that violates a legal duty owed
to another person, a duty arising from a contract or criminal law .as it is portrayed in
the case of kayanja vs. Attorney General (1973) court held that government officers
could be sued in tort for wrongful acts.

2-Compansation ;tort law is compensatory ;its main objective is to restore the injured
party not to punish the wrong doer as it was portrayed in the case of Dr. Henry
kamanyiro kakembo vs. Roko construction Limited(2014) Court awarded UGX 5
million in general damages for trespass , focused on compensation other than
punishment.
 3-Breach of legal duty ; tort arises from breach of duties fixed by law not from an
agreement or statute as it well said in the case of Kayanja vs. AG court ruled that
public officials owed a legal duty not to unlawfully detained . A defendant can be
liable in tort for violating a duty even without a contract or criminal conduct.

4- Harm or injury; a tort results in harm, injury, or damage to a person, property, of

another person .this harm can be physical, emotional, or financial in nature.

5- Legal remedy; the main remedy is monetary compensation (general, special,

exemplary damages.) in some cases injunctions may also be granted to prevent
further harm. Case law Kakembo vs. Roko construction general damages were
awarded.
DISTINGUISGING LAW OF TORTS FROM OTHER CIVIL ACTIONS.
a. TORT AND CRIME
The foremost purpose of criminal law is to punish wrongdoers for their harmful action towards
the society. This punishment can either be in the form of imprisonment, death sentence, or fine.
Torts on the other hand is not concerned with punishing the wrongdoer. Its aim is to compensate
the affected party for the wrong done against him by the tortfeasor.
Another point is modified into statutes like the criminal code and penal code Act. The law of
torts on the other hand is made up of judicial decisions which are occasionally modified by
statutes.
The other difference is the standard of proof. For a crime, the prosecution must prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas in torts the standard of proof is to be used in balance of
probability. In the case of Woolmington v Dpp (1935) it is therefore easier for a plaintiff to
succeed in tort than for the prosecution to secure a conviction in crime.
In summary, tort can be difinitiated from crime in the following:
 Burden of proof( sec 101-111) of the evidence act
 Standard of proof
 Purpose
 Nature of proceeding
 Parties to a case
 Representation
 Limitation
 Termination
 Remedies

b. TORT AND CONTRACT

A fundamental difference between the law of torts and the law of contract is that in the law of
torts, the breach is of duty imposed by the law while in the law of contract, the breach is of
agreement reached upon by both parties. However, in the law of contract there are some
underlying principles that parties are bound to keep due to the provision of the law.
There are also some situations in which a tort can be varied due to agreement between the
parties. For example the duty owed by an occupier of premises to his visitors. Also torts can be
excluded altogether by consent.
Case example is of Kelly vs. metropolitan railway co. (1895) the plaintiff sued the company for
injury sustained due to the negligence of members of its staff during the journey. The court held
that in this scenario, it was a tort even though there was contract between both parties.
In summary;
 Duties (in tort duties are fixed by law while in contract duties are fixed by parties)
 The law of contract is based on conduct of parties to a contract while in tort is based on
rights and obligations fixed by law.

c. TORT AND TRUST

The law of trust deals with the ownership of property by one person or entity for the benefit of
another person or entity. The main distinction between the law of torts and trust is in their origin.
The law of torts has its origin entrenched in the common law. The law of trust on the other hand
originated from equity in the court of chancery.
Trusts may be classified according to the kind of rights or interests which they protect. Therefore
torts maybe grouped as far as those that protect or concern.
Consequently, the law of trust, tort, crime and contracts are not exclusive of each other. An act
may constitute a breach of all of them .for example the stealing of trust funds by a trustee would
make him liable under the law of trust. He could be held liable for conversion under the law of
torts, he could be prosecuted for breach of trust under criminal law, and if the trust was a written
agreement, he could be liable for a breach of the contract of trust.
In this kind of situation in which an act raises liability I different areas, the best thing is to do is
for the plaintiff to sue under the aspect of law that offers the most remedy. See chessworth vs.
Farar (1967).
REMEDIES FOR TORT LAW
Remedies in tort law are the legal means through which a person who has suffered a tortious
wrong can seek redress or compensation .the primary aim is to restore the injured party to the
position they were in before the tort occurred as far as possible. Remedies fall under three main
categories;
1 . Damages (monetary compensation )
 This is the most common remedy in tort law.
a. Compensatory damages. To compensate for actual loss.
In the case of attorney general v Susan kigula and 417 others (2009). Prisoners sued for
torture and inhumane conditions. And compensatory damages were awarded.
b. . General damages; for non – quantifiable losses (e.g., pain, and suffering, emotional
distress, loss of reputation).
.Special damages; for specific, quantifiable losses (e.g., medical bills, lost wages,
property repair).
c. Nominal damages; this refers small amount awarded when a legal right is violated but
no actual loss is suffered.
d. Punitive (Exemplary) damages: to punish the wrongdoer for malicious or grossly
negligent conduct. In the case of Rookes v Barnard (1964) AC1129. LordDevline
explained that punitive damages can be awarded in cases of oppressive. Arbitrary or
unconstitutional actions by government servants.
2 Injunctions
A court order requiring a person to do or refrain from doing a specific act.
Types: prohibitory injunctions: stops someone from continuing a tort (E.g.… stopping
noise pollution).
Mandatory injunctions: orders someone to do something (E.g. …remove a nuisance).
Case example, miller v Jackson (1977) a cricket club was injucted from playing
games after repeatedly hitting balls into a neighbor’s property.
3. Specific restitution (restitution of property)
Restoring the injured party’s property that was wrongfully taken or withheld.
Case example; Kuwait airways corp v Iraqi airways co. (2002); court ordered
restitution of aircraft wrongfully taken during war.
4. Self-help (extra-judicial remedy).
Sometimes a person can take lawful action without going to court. E.g...Ejecting a
trespasser using reasonable force.
Limitations: must be reasonable.
Cannot involve excessive force.
May lead to liability if wrongly exercised.
Example, a landowner removing a trespasser peacefully from their land.

END