PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

One form of conversion is where there has been a positive and unequivocal wrongful act of dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights and an intention in so doing to deny the owner's rights or to assert a right inconsistent with them: see Ashby v. Tolhurst (1937) 2 All ER 837; Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Finch and Another (1962) 2 All ER 467; Howard E. Perry & Co. Ltd. v. British Railways Board (1980) 2 All ER 579; Commissioner of Police v. Oguntayo (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.299) 259; Ojini v. Ogo Oluwa Motors Nigeria Ltd. (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.534) 353. Conversion as a cause of action is a tort over which any State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Uwaifo, JSC, in *7-UP Bottling Company Ltd. & Ors v. Abiola and Sons Bottling Company Ltd.* (2001) NLC-631996(SC) at p. 39; Paras C–E.
"One form of conversion is where there has been a positive and unequivocal wrongful act of dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights and an intention in so doing to deny the owner's rights or to assert a right inconsistent with them: see Ashby v. Tolhurst (1937) 2 All ER 837; Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Finch and Another (1962) 2 All ER 467; Howard E. Perry & Co. Ltd. v. British Railways Board (1980) 2 All ER 579; Commissioner of Police v. Oguntayo (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.299) 259; Ojini v. Ogo Oluwa Motors Nigeria Ltd. (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.534) 353. Conversion as a cause of action is a tort over which any State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Conversion requires a positive, unequivocal wrongful act dealing with goods inconsistently with the owner’s rights, with intent to deny those rights or assert inconsistent rights. Sale of property in disobedience of a court order constitutes conversion because it wrongfully interferes with the owner’s possessory rights and defies judicial authority. The act must be deliberate, not merely negligent. Conversion is a tort within State High Court jurisdiction. The remedy includes damages for the value of the converted property. The tort protects ownership and possession against unauthorized dealing. Disobeying court orders aggravates the wrong but is not essential—unauthorized sale alone suffices.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE

None recorded.