Metodologías para la Mejora de Procesos.

A plaintiff can only maintain action for the tort of detinue after satisfying two conditions which are:

1. The plaintiff must have title that is ownership or right to immediate possession of the chattel.

2. The defendant who is in actual possession of the chattel must have failed, and or refused to deliver the chattel to the plaintiff after the plaintiff has made a proper demand for the return of the chattel, without lawful excuse. Thus, there must have been a demand by the plaintiff for the return of the chattel and a refusal or a failure to return them. This making of a demand by the plaintiff on the defendant is a condition precedent which the plaintiff must establish to succeed in his claim for detinue.

In Kosile v Folarin (1989) 3 NWLR pt 107, p. 1 SC,

The defendant motor dealer seized and detained the motor vehicle he had sold to the plaintiff on credit terms, upon delay by the plaintiff to fully pay up. The plaintiff buyer sued for detinue claiming damages. The Supreme Court held: inter alia that the seizure and detention of the vehicle by the defendant was wrong. The plaintiff was entitled to the return of the vehicle or its value and for loss of the use of the vehicle until the date of judgment at the rate of N20 per day.

In the above case, the Supreme Court emphasised the requirement that in an action for detinue, there must have been a demand by the plaintiff on the defendant to return the chattel, and if the defendant persists in keeping the chattel, he is liable for detinue. See also lhenacho v Uzochukwu (1997) 2 NWLR pt 487, p. 257 SC.

In West Mrica Examinations Council v Koroye (1977) 2 SC 45; 11 NSCC 61,

The plaintiff sat for an examination conducted by the defendant council. The defendant neglected and or refused to release his certificate. The plaintiff successfully claimed in detinue for his certificate and was award damages in lieu of the release of the certificate by the Supreme Court.

In Davies v Lagos City Council (supra at 155),

The defendant city council wrongfully seized and detained the plaintiff’s taxi cab. The plaintiff sued claiming damages. The Lagos High Court held that: The plaintiff was entitled to a return of the vehicle and loss of earnings on the vehicle as a result of the unlawful detention. In this case ADEFARASIN J as he then was stated that a plaintiff is entitled to loss of earnings on his chattel which he uses for work or business, thus:

"This is not a case in which the plaintiff is entitled to the value of the vehicle. He is, however, entitled to the losses caused to him as a result of the unlawful detention. He is entitled to the loss of earning on the vehicle.”

In Steyr Nig. Ltd v Gadzama (1995) 7 NWLR pt 407. p. 305 CA,

At the end of their services, the plaintiff appellant company sued the defendant respondents who were former employees of the appellant for detaining official cars and household items which were in their use as top management staff of the company. The Court of Appeal held: that the respondents were to pay reasonable prices for the items in lieu of returning the chattels.

Stitch v A.G. Federation (1986) 5 NWLR pt 47, p. 1007 SC.

The plaintiff appellant imported a car from overseas. It was detained by the Board of Customs and Excise at the sea port. The Customs then sold it to the fourth defendant who started cannibalizing and selling its parts. The plaintiff appellant sued the defendants for return of the car. On appeal the Supreme Court held: that the appellant was entitled to possession of the car, but as it was virtually a wreck due to cannibalism, the court will order that the trial court should take evidence as to what a fairly used car similar to that of the appellant's car will cost and award the purchase price as damages to the appellant in lieu of the return of the car. See also Ordia v Piedmont Nig. Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR pt 379. p.

516 SC.

Ajikawo v Ansaldo Nig. Ltd (1991) 2 NWLR pt 173. p. 359 CA.

The plaintiff appellant bought a generator from its owner who asked him to collect it from the defendant respondent company who had custody of it. The respondent indicated interest to buy it and refused to release it to the appellant buyer. The appellant sued for the unlawful detention of the generator. The Court of Appeal held: that the appellant buyer was entitled to the generator, or its value and also to damages for the period of detinue till it was delivered up, or it value paid, for detinue is a continuing cause of action which accrues at the date of the wrongful refusal to deliver up the goods, and continues until delivery up of the goods or judgment in the suit, or payment of its value. See also Kalu v Mbuko (1988) 3 NLWR Pt BO. p. 86 CA.

Ogiugo & Sons Ltd v C.O.P (1991) 3 NWLRpt177, p.46 CA.

The lorry of the plaintiff appellant transporter was carrying a customer's goods, when the police intercepted and seized the vehicle on suspicion that the goods were contraband.

Representations for its release failed to yield result. The appellant claimed for detinue of the vehicle. The Court of Appeal held: that the appellant was entitled to the immediate release of the vehicle and damages for its unlawful detention. The plaintiff must have title or right to immediate possession to be able to sue successfully for detinue.

Shuwa v Chad Basin Development Authority (1991) 7 NWLR pt 205, p. 550 CA.

A third party sold a bulldozer which they had no authority to sell to the plaintiff appellant.

The bulldozer was in the custody of the defendant respondent authority who had a lien on it. The respondent authority refused to release it to the appellant unless the third party seller paid the money due on it to the respondent authority. The third party who was the owner of the bulldozer had forfeited it to the authority under the terms of an unfulfilled contract. The appellant buyer sued for the detention of the bulldozer. The Court of Appeal held: that the action of the plaintiff appellant must fail. The third party had no authority to sell to the plaintiff as they no longer had title. The plaintiff in a claim for detinue must establish that he is the owner or that he has right to immediate possession of the thing the recovery of which he is seeking. See also Sodimu v NPA (1975) All NLR 151.

As a general rule, where there is a subsisting lien on a property, a claim for detinue will not succeed as was held in Shuwa v Chad Basin Development Authority (supra).

In Otubu v Omotayo (1995) 6 NWLR pt 400, p. 247 CA,

The plaintiff respondent kept his title deeds with a third party who subsequently deposited the deeds with the defendant appellant as collateral to secure a loan. The plaintiff respondent sued the defendant appellant for return of the title deeds. The Court of Appeal held: that an action cannot succeed where there is a subsisting lien on the chattel. Where there has been an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds as collateral to secure a loan, by a third party who does not own the deeds, but had custody of the deeds, an action

for detinue cannot be maintained for return of the deeds or chattel, prior to payment of the amount due on it, or redemption of any outstanding obligation. See also Udechukwu v Okwuka (1956) SCNLR 189 at 191.