LEGAL PRINCIPLE: TORT LAW – Detinue – Wrongful Detention – When Refusal Conditional on Repayment of Debt Unauthorised by True Owner Does Not Defeat Cause of Action
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A conditional refusal that requires the plaintiff to satisfy a debt she did not owe or authorise to be incurred does not make the refusal a valid conditional refusal; the cause of action for detinue remains.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Labode v. Otubu & Anor (2001) NLC-1721995(SC) at p. 39; Paras B–C.
"That the plaintiff should satisfy a debt which she did not owe or authorize to be incurred is not such a condition that would make the refusal a conditional refusal. The plaintiff has averred those facts enumerated above which, if proved, will support the grant of an order that the document be delivered to her and that the defendants pay consequential damages."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A conditional refusal to return goods does not defeat a claim for detinue if the condition is improper. Requiring the true owner to repay a debt they did not owe or authorise is not a valid condition. Such a refusal is treated as an unconditional refusal for legal purposes. The cause of action for detinue accrues upon demand and improper refusal. The defendant cannot avoid liability by imposing conditions the true owner is not obliged to meet. The principle prevents possessors from creating artificial defences. The court will look at the substance of the refusal, not its form. An unlawful condition does not protect the detainer.