Tort - Detention of another's
goods - Goods seized by police
later
The company advanced money to
the respondent for a lorry,
which he used
in transporting logs for them.
He wrote to say, when given the
advance, that the lorry would be
under lien to the Company until
repayment. The Company seized
the lorry without his consent
(it had a log on, etc., but this
is not material to this note):
the Company thought, mistakenly,
that it had the right to seize
the lorry, and refused to return
it. The respondent as plaintiff
sued for the return of the lorry
or its value (and for other
damages). Between the issue of
the writ and the filing of the
plaintiff's statement of Claim
the police, acting under a
Magistrate's order, seized the
lorry from the Company's hands
in connexion with a charge
against the plaintiff: (the
police would have seized it
equally if it had been in the
plaintiff's hands). The
Company's defence did not claim
ownership of the lorry; it
mentioned that it had been taken
by the police. The trial Judge
ordered the Company to return
the lorry or pay its value. The
Company appealed.
Held:
The lorry had ceased to be in
the Company's possession through
no voluntary or wrongful act of
the Company, and it was
consequently a mistake to order
the Company to return the lorry
or pay its value.
Appeal by defendant: No. 3635.
F. R. A. Williams,
with him O.
A. Akitoye,
for Appellants.
M. A.
O.
Williams
for Respondent.
The following judgment
was delivered:
de Comarmond, Ag. C.].
The plaintiff (now respondent)
bought a motor-lorry in 1949 and
registered it in his name. Part
of the purchase price of the
lorry (£200) was advanced by the
defendant Company (now
appellant) to plaintiff. The
plaintiff was at the time
engaged in transporting and
delivering logs to the defendant
Company. When the money was
advanced to him by the defendant
Company, the plaintiff wrote to
the Company stating that the
lorry would be •• under lien" to
the Company until repayment of
the £200 either in cash or by
the delivery of logs.
On the 24th January, 1950, the
defendant Company took
possession of the lorry without
the plaintiff's consent. The
lorry was at the time loaded
with a log and, according to
plaintiff, also carried a
six-ton jack worth £9, a set of
spanners worth £5 and a pump
worth £2 10s. 0d.
The Company thought that it had
the right to detain the lorry by
virtue of the supposed lien as
security for the debt owed by
the plaintiff. That this was an
error was freely admitted by Mr.
F. R. A. Williams who argued
the appeal on behalf of the
Company (the appellant).
The taking of the lorry by the
Company was undoubtedly unlawful
and when the Company refused to
return the lorry to the
plaintiff on demand being made
it became abundantly clear that
the detention was also unlawful.
The plaintiff caused a writ of
summons to be issued against
defendant claiming :-
(1) the return of the lorry, the
log, the jack and the tools or
in the alternative the value
thereof which was alleged to
total £376 10s. 0d., and
[pg
126]
(2) special damages up to date
of judgment for loss of earnings
occasioned by the
detention of the lorry and
£00 general damages
It is clear
from the writ of summons
that the plaintiff was seeking
redress for the wrongful taking
of his lorry and did not allege
that the defendant had converted
the lorry and other articles to
its own use.
The chief difficulty in
the case arises from the fact
that although the lorry was
being used unlawfully by the
defendant when the writ was
filed in February 1950 , yet it
was no longer in defendants
possession when the statement of
claim was filed on the 13th
May,1950.What happened was that
on the 1st of May1950 the police
acting on an order given by the
magistrate at Ibadan, had taken
the lorry away The other (
exhibit. 4 ) shows that the
plaintiff had to answer charges
of forgery and of obtaining
goods by false pretence and that
the lorry
was for some reason wanted as an
exhibit.
It was conceded by Mr. M. A. O.
Williams, who represented the
plaintiffrespondent before this
Court, that the police would
have taken the lorry away even
if it had been in
plaintiff-respondent's
possession on the 1st May.
I am of opinion that the action
taken by the police put an end
to the unlawful detention of the
lorry by the
defendant-appellant.
It is to be noted that the
defendant-appellant did not
attempt to claim ownership of
the lorry in his statement of
defence. In paragraph 5 thereof,
there was an averment that the
so-called lien held by the
Company justified the taking of
the lorry for the protection of
the Company's interests, and in
paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
statement of defence reference
was made to the fact that the
police had taken the lorry away.
The learned trial Judge gave
judgment for plaintiff for the
return of the lorry in good
working order within 15 days or
payment of its value (£300);
also for the return within the
same period of the jack and
tools mentioned in the writ of
summons or, in default, the
value thereof as set out in the
writ; and finally, he granted
£25 general damages for the
wrongful detention of the lorry.
and £42 special damages
calculated at 30s. per day from
the beginning of the period of'
detention to the date of filing
of the writ.
The main ground of appeal argued
before this Court was that the
Court below should not have
ordered the return of the lorry
which was no longer in
appellant's possession and which
had ceased to be in his
possession through no voluntary
or wrongful act of his own.
I am of opinion that in the
circumstances of this case the
appellant must succeed on this
ground. Had the appellant
disposed of the lorry while it
was in his possession as if he
was the owner thereof. the
respondent would have had good
ground for claiming damages for
the conversion of his property
by the appellant. As already
pointed out, the respondent did
not allege conversion.
At the hearing of the appeal
this Court was informed by
Counsel that the lorry is still
with the police at lbadan
although the matter in
connection with which it was
wanted as an exhibit has been
concluded. This Court was also
informed that no direction had
been given by the Magistrate as
to the person to whom the lorry
should be returned. Mr. F. R. A.
Williams for the
defendantappellant submitted
that the appellant could not
claim the lorry from the police
because it is not disputed that
it is respondent's property.
Being given that Counsel for the
respondent has conceded that the
lorry would have been taken to
lbadan even if it had been in
respondent's possession on the
1st May. 1950. it seems to me
that it is for the respondent to
take delivery of his property
from the police.
As regards the log, jack and
tools which the plaintiff
claimed. appellant's Counsel
submitted that evidence was
given by his client's clerk that
respondent's driver had taken a
jack, a pump and some clothing
from the lorry before it was
taken away by the appellant's
servants. The learned trial
Judge pointed out [pg127]
of the Court below altered to
read: " Judgment for plaintiff
for one hundred and forty-five
pounds ten shillings (£145 10s.
0d.) special damages and
twenty-five pounds (£25) general
damages; defendant to return to
the plaintiff within fifteen
days plaintiff's six-ton jack,
set of spanners, foot pump and
one Antiaris log which were on
plaintiff's lorry on the 24th
January, 1950, or in default to
pay £9, £5, £2 10s. 0d. and £10
respectively within the same
period. The defendant to pay the
plaintiff costs assessed at
twenty-five (25) guineas.