Description
Matters of jurisdiction – general damages – specifically pleaded – common law tort of false imprisonment – damages for loss of reputation, mental torture and suffering – unquantifiable – court of the lowest grade competent – unquantifiable claim of damages – tortious liability – jurisdiction of the primary court in civil matters – breach of contractual obligation – customary torts – court of first instance to try a tortious matter premised on common law torts – malice – ingredients of false imprisonment – unlawful detention – whether the arrest was executed and whether it was justifiable – shift of burden of proof – failure to cross-examine a witness – mere presence at the scene of arrest – civil liability for the tort of false imprisonment.
- Matters of jurisdiction may be raised at any time even on appeal (p. 5).
- General damages need not be specifically pleaded as they may be asked for by a mere statement or prayer of claim (p. 7).
- In a claim under the common law tort of false imprisonment, the prayer for damages for loss of reputation, mental torture and suffering are unquantifiable (p. 7).
- The Resident Magistrate’s Court is the court of the lowest grade competent to try an unquantifiable claim of damages based on tortious liability (p. 8). The primary court is not competent to try the suit because jurisdiction of the primary court in civil matters is limited only to breach of contractual obligation and customary torts (p. 8).
- Since tort is a common law creature, that is, of English law origins, jurisdiction of primary court will be limited by the law applicable which is customary law or islamic law in proceedings of a civil nature (p. 8).
- The court of first instance to try a tortious matter premised on common law torts is a District Court and a Resident Magistrate’s Court.
- Malice is not an ingredient to prove false imprisonment (p. 11).
- False imprisonment or unlawful detention is conditioned upon two basic elements that, the complainant should be able to prove that he was arrested and that, it was the defendant who authorised the arrest (p. 11).
- In false imprisonment or unlawful detention, what the court has to determine is whether the arrest was executed and whether it was justifiable (p. 12).
- In false imprisonment once detention or imprisonment is dully established, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify whether the same was carried with a lawful cause (p. 12).
- False imprisonment – plaintiff was arrested on allegations by the defendant that he had obstructed a lawful order of effecting arrest – however the defendant failed to prove those allegations hence the defendant was found guilty of the tort of false imprisonment (p. 15).
- Failure to cross-examine a witness on a certain fact constitutes acceptance/admission of such fact (p. 15).
- False imprisonment – mere presence at the scene of arrest does not automatically give rise to any civil liability for the tort of false imprisonment (p. 16).
