TRESPASS TO LAND

Any negligent or unwanted interference to land or person accrues to

trespass to land.
E.g. any interference to

Theres no requirement that trespass should amount to damage.

Its so because the owner of the land need not prove damage in
order to succeed in a course of action.

Being a trespass the key requirement of the court is are:@

1. Direct Act
The trespass should be direct on the part of the defendant
(If the contact is indirect course of action wont be indirect
See. Pickering v. Rudd)
2. Positive Act
It has to be based upon a positive act (Riley case) not doing is
not trespass. Defendants acts should contribute directly.
3. Physical Interference.
Plaintiff should be able to prove defendant physically interfered
with the land. Read, Lavender v Betts and Perera v Vendiyar.
Where a person who has paid to watch a movie at a cinema is
asked to leave in the middle of the movie but refuses to leave it
results in a trespass as paying for the movie does not give him
proprietary interest in the land (Hurst v Picture Theaters)
Decision was reversed in Corwell v Rosehill Race Course
4. Act must be Voluntary
Proof of Voluntariness on the part of the plaintiff
(controllability)
Plaintiff has to proof defendant was in control of what ever made
contact to the land.
See smith v Stone: when a person is forcefully thrown onto
anothers property it doesnt amount to trespass to land. He has
no control.
a. When forced or threatened to trespass onto anothers land its
considered as a trespass to land.
b. If you trespass onto a person land mistakenly you can still be
sued for trespass to land see Basely v. Clarkson

WHO HAS THE CAPACITY TO SUE

This is the person who is in possession of the property.
Law on trespass to land protects possession
The actual owner or the person with the legal rights to own it is the one
in possession. See Wuta Offei v. Danquah

Trespasser can sue every citizen of the world except the actual
owner or hos legal representative. Actual owner of the property is
the only one who cant be sued in trespass to land.
(Oshodemirim v Tetteh and Nunekpeku v. Ametepe)

Mere use of the land doesnt entitle a person to sue (Hill v.

Tupper)

Allan v. Liverpool Overseers

How can a Defendant Trespass the Subsoil of Plaintiff.

1. Trespass to Surface Soil
If an adjoining property is put to a proper use that interferes with the
other adjoining owner of property he can sue for Trespass to land.
See Harrison v. Duke of Rutland.
And in
Hickman v. Maisey
2. Airspace
Any violation of airspace belonging to another matter transient will not
be actionable as a trespass (Pickering v Rudd)
In Kelson v. Imperial Tobacco
Difference in ruling between Kelson & Pickering case
Violation in airspace had a feature of permanency in kelson as
compared to Pikkering v Rudd
Ellis v Loftus Iron Co.,
Theres no difference between taking a step and walking a mile on a
plaintiffs land
Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews General ltd. the land owners rights in
the air space above are limited

TRESPASS TO CHATTEL/GOODS
Intention or Negligently interfering with goods or chattel owned to
another person.
Forson v Koens
Trespass to chattel is different from a conversion. They both have to do
with interference and goods.
Trespass to Chattel is actionable per se

Mere interference suffices for a case in trespass to chattel/goods.

There is no need to proof damage to goods.

If plaintiff cant proof damage to chattel action to trespass to chattel

should not hold see Fouldes v. Willoughby
Who Has Capacity to Sue
The law is that the person who is possession can sue
Who is said in law to be in possession?
This just doesnt refer to actual possession but the intention to exclude
others.
As long as a tenancy is in subsistence the tenant is said to be in
possession and not the landlord.
Trover, a cause of action to a person who has got interest in the
ownership of goods
Ward v Macauley the landlord who is not in actual possession of a
good cant sue unless through Trover
A person in possession can be in an illegal possession of the chattel,
and has a cause of action against everybody except the actual owner.
See Wilson v. Lombank ltd.
Mental Requirement of Tort (for a plaintiff to succeed)
Blame worthy intention
Negligence
Cause of action wouldnt succeed without proving these two.
E.g. an action would not succeed against a person carrying water who
trips and splashes water on anothers property.
See: National Coal Board v Evans

Exception
Plaintiff doesnt always have to be in possession to maintain an action
Bailee/Bailor
When goods are given out in bailment. The bailee who is in possession
of the food for a fixed term has the capacity to sue. If its not for a fixed
term both the bailee and bailor can sue.
Trustee
If good are in Trust of a beneficiary. Where there is a damage/trespass
to the good the trustee can sue.
Owner of a franchise
Administrators/Executors.
An executor who goes for the grant of probate can sue for all goods in
device of the will. This is for when a person dies without making a will

CONVERSION
Interference here is not just mere, it has to be extensive, corrosive, and
deep.
If you use one persons good and return it, it wouldnt be actionable
here. However failure to return the good after several prompts
becomes conversion
Unlike trespass to chattel it cant be negligently committed.
To succeed, there should be intention
See yandoug Industries v. Roro Services (2005 2006) ScGLR 841
T.K. Serbeh v. Mensah (2005 2006)
Its no offence if a conduct is a negligent conduct.
It wont be conversion if an individual receives a parcel and assumes he
is the owner and opens it.
Title to Sue
Armory v. Delamire
Conversion also protects possession. The owner who is in possession
can sue. Another person in possession can sue other than the other
actual owner.
A finder in possession of a good can sue. Law treats goods and chattels
found loosely on the ground as. ??????

If a finder finds a good attached to the land the person in possession

has the capacity to sue. See decision in Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co and
London Corporation v. Appleyard
If a chattel is found loosely, the finder has the capacity to sue and not
the one in possession.
See: Bridges v Hacksworth and
Hannah v Peel
The law is that an individual cant sue and succeed if he finds a chattel
lying loosely on a private property. See Hibbert v Mckiernan (1948) 2
KB
FORMS OF CONVERSION
Refusing to surrender chattel/good (conversion by refusal to surrender)
Denying access to Chattel (conversion by denial of access). The Denial
of Access has to be complete/absolute. See Decision in England v.
Cowley and
Oakely v Lyster
Wansborough & Anor v. Maton
The position of absoluteness was decided otherwise in Judges in the
Ghanaian case of African Drug Co. v. Kumasi City Council
Its suggested that its only tangible goods that can be converted.
However intangible goods can be converted. Shares, Bonds e.t.c
See De Wills Archibold v. CFAO
Musical instrument, which had not been reduced into writing, can also
be converted.
Strict Liability
The mere fact that youve engaged in a prohibited act is enough for
strict liability
DEFENSE
i.
Consent: the defendant consenrted to battery, cant sue and
succeed. If A DEFENDANT COMES, AS LICENCEE CANT BE
SUED FRO TRESPASS. Consent vitiates everything unless??Eg
A patient consents to touch, hes entitled to refuse. However if
the Dr. goes ahead to conduct a medical procedure. He can
be sued. Dr. would have to however explain procedure to
patient. In general terms theres no requirement for Dr. to
explain everything. Consent here is real. See Chatterton v.
Gorson (1981) ALL ER 257. Ct Appeal what a real dr acting
professionally would feel compelled to give the extent of
information given (based on reasonableness) Bench mark Dr

practice with standard procedure see Ciderway v Board of

Govenors.
Matter becomes more complex when dealing with medical
patients. It is presumed that a medical patient is not in a
position to consent.
According to Law said theres should be no such presumptions
that mental patients are in no position to consent or not.
Patient would succeed in battery if consent is not sort.
Generally the consent of a patient need to be sort before
medical contact is made.
Law is no one can give consent on behalf of an adult. If an
adult is unconscious and is incapable of exercising his consent
the Dr has to act in the best interest of the patient.
Should the MD ignore the wishes of the patient not
conducting a blood transfusion in the interest of the patient?
Would an action succeed? See RE S court would order for
proceeding to continue in the best interest of the unborn
child.
Vitiating Consent
Consent can be vitiated by duress- In Re T ( 1992) 4 All ER
649 parent convinced patient to refuse transfusion on
religious grounds.
Court held that hospital authorities were right in going ahead
with procedure. Ac
See R v Williams consent that has been fraudulently
obtained can be vitiated
Inevitable action- no amount of diligence can prevent it
Self Defense
Law allows one to act in self-defense. However the amount of
force used should measured. It should be proportionate. If
disproportionate an action would fail Cochcroft v smith
What is
Lane v Holloway
Defense on ones property
Creswell v Sirl

There a thin line between discipline and been cold to a child

Ash v Ash
Abatement of Nuisance
See Pickering v Rude
Lemmon v Webb ii.