THE OPEN UNIVERSITY OF TANZANIA
FACULTY OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS OLW 204
COURSE OUTLINE
TEXTBOOKS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING
1. Barker, D. Tort (1981)
2. Clerk & Lindsell, on Tort (1982)
3. Fleming J.G. Law of Torts (1971)
4. Hepple & Matherws, Tort Cases & Materials (1974)
5. Huaraka, T. The Law of Torts (1974)
6. Lewis, P. Gatley on Liberl & Slander (1981)
7. Orisserm W.L. Law of Torts
8. Rogwers, W,V. H. Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (1989)
9. Salmond & Heuston, The Law of Torts (1989)
10. Street, H. The Law of Tors (1983)
11. Veltch, E. Esat African Cases on the Law of Torts.
12. Weir, T. A. Casebook on Tort (1983)
ARTICLES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Fridman (177) 93 LQR 422 (The Interaction of Tort & Contract)
Poulton (1966) 82 LQR 346 (Tort or Contract)
Atiyah (1983) 99 LQR 217 (The Rise & Fall of Contract & Promises..)
Williams, G. (1955) 8 Curr. Leg. Problems 107 (The Definition of a Crime).
Fleming, J.G. (1959) 8 Buffalo L.R. 315 (Tort Lawq in Midsatearm).
Jolowicz (1968) C.L.J. 50 (Liability of Accidents).
7. Williams. G. (1939) 7 Camb L.J. 111.
8. Williams, G. (1951) Current Legal Problems (137).
9. Wright, (1948) Can Bar Rev. 46.
TOPIC ONE: INTRODUCTION.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reception of the Law of Torts
Meaning of Tort.
Theories on the Law of Torts
Foundations of Tortious Labiality
Distinctions of Torts Liability
General Aspect of Tortuous Liability.
Suggested Readings.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Rogers (Winfiedl & Jolowicz) pp. 1 -28.
Salmond pp. 1-13.
Prosser pp. 1-39.
Flemming pp. 1-13.
Williams G., Foundations of the Laws of Tort pp. 1-35
Contract, Tort & Crime in 87 LQR 240.
Huaraka pp. 1 – 39.
Weir, t.
Cases:
1. Bradford Corpn. (1985) AC 587
2. Mogal Steamship (Gow & Co. AC 25)
3. Homes v. Mather (1875)
4. Ashby v. White (1703)
5. Isidor Ndetkanga (1969) HCD 186(HUARAKA)
6. Alexander Kalibonaki (Huaraka)
7. Yohana’s case (1962) Dig. of Civ. App. Vol. IX No. 222 (Huaraka)
8. Gate Marwa (1977) LRT No. 13.
9. Yahaya Abedo (1976) LRT No. 56.
10. Mariba Wangangi (1977) LRT No. 7
TOPIC TWO INTENTIONAL INVASIONS OF INTERESTS IN THE PERSON AND
PROPERTY OF TESPASS.
1. International Torts to the Person
- Assault.
- Battery
- False Imprisonment
2.
3.
4.
5.
Malicous prosecution
Intererence with Chattels
Trespass to land
Defences.
Readings.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rogers (Winfield & Jolowicz
Fleming, J.G.
Goodhart, 49 LQR 359
Dworkin, (1959) 22 MLR 538-542
Fridman, (1963) MLR 481.
Huaraka.
Cases
1.
2.
3.
4.
Latang v. Cooper (1964) 2 All E.R. 929/1 Q.B 232.
Aloys Ignas v. Simeo Mulokozi (1968) HCD 440.
Mbuiv. Wilson (1955) 1 All E.R. 744.
R.v. Wilson (
16. Kagawa v. Att. Gen. (1969) E.A 643
17. Meghji v. Alibhai (1967) HCD 235
18. Festo v. Mwakabana (1971) HCD 417.
19. William Chamafwa v. Francis Bitegeko (1975) LRT No. 36.
20. John William v. Placid Komba (1968) LRT No. 63.
21. Berry v. British Transport Commission (1960) 3 All E.R. 322/1962 1
22. Glinski v. Mclver (1962) 1 All E.R. 696/1962 A.C. 726
23. Mzee s/o Selemani v.R. (1968) HCD 364.
24. Sullivan v. Osman (1957) E.R. 239 C.A
TOPIC THREE NEGLIGENCE
I.
1. What is Negligenee
2. History of Negligence.
3. Elements and Proof of Negligence.
4. Specific Situationsof Negligence.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Negligent Misstatements
Nervours Shock.
Readings
Rogers (Winfield & HOlowicz)
Stree
Huaraka.
Craig. 92 LQR 321-241.
Cap. 360 Part V.
Goodhart (1953)
Cases.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562
B.A. Mlinga v. Mwanchi Total Service Station (1972) HCD 241 Huaraka 138.
Bolton v. Young (1942) 2 A.E.R. 1078
Bourhill v. Young (1942) 2 A.E.R 44.
Glasgow Carpn. V. Muir (1943)2 A.E.R. 44.
Carmarthenshire C.C. V. Lewise (1955) 1 A.E.R. 566.
Home Office v. Dorset Yacht (1970)2 A. E. R. 294
Ckattib v. Woodman & Sons (1962) 2QB. 533.
9. Hedley Byrne v. Heller & Partners Ltd (1969)2 AER 575.
10. Rondel v. Worsley (1967)3 A.E.R. 993/1969) A.C 191.
11. Spartan Steel & Alley Ltd v. Martin (1972)3 AER 557.
12. Dutton v. Bognor Regis U.DC. (1972) 1 AER 462
13. Francis Ngaire v. N.I.C. (1972) HCD n. 134.
14. Wilknson v. Downton (1897) 2 QB 57
15. Dulieu v. While & Sons (1901) 2 K.B. 669
16. Hambrook v. Stokes & Brother (1925) 1 KB. 141
(a) Contractees
(b) Invitees.
(c) Licensees.
(d) Trespassers.
(iii) Assumption of risk S. 3(5)
(iv) Contributory negligence S. 3(3) (b)
Wheat v. Locan & Son (1966) 1 QB 335, at 372.
Bunker v. Brand (Charles) & Sons.
(v) Independent Contractor
A.M.F. International Ltd. v. Magnet Bowling (1968) 1 W.I.R. 1028
Woodward v. Mayor of Hastings (1945) KB 174.
SOME SPECIAL CASES WITHIN THE ACT
(I)
Fixed or movable structures ss. 2 (3) (a): 2(1) Kearney v. Willer
(1967) 1 QB 29.
(ii) Property s. 2(3) (b)
A.M.F. International Ltd v. Magnet Bowing (1968)2 All E.R. 789
(iii) Liability in contract ss. (1); 6 (2) to third party s. 4 Irving v. London C.C.
(1965) 109 S.J. 157
LIABILITY TO RESPASSERS.
Railways Commissioner v. Quinland (1964) A.C 1054 Herrington v. British
Railways Board (1971)2 QB 107 Videan v. British Transport Commission
(1963)2 QB 650.
Children
S. 3(3) (a)
Herrington v. British Railways Board (1971)2 QB 107
Robert Addie & Sons. V. Dumbreck (1929) AC 358.
Videan V. British Transport Commission (1963) QB 650.
Glasgow Corp. v. Taylor (1922) Ac. 44
Excelsior Wire Rope v. Callan (1930) AC 404.
Philips v. Rochester Corp. (1955) 1 Q.B. 450
2. Vicarious Liability.
The Circumstances in which an employer may be liable where harm is caused
by an act or omission of someone doing work fro her/him.
An Employer is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his/her
employee while acting in the course of their employments.
Nicolous Leopart v. B. Ntangillege Bagenzi Civ. Appl. 29-D65: 28/6/85
(Unreported)
Margans v. Launchbury (1791)2 QB 245, (19720 (h.1)
Glanville Williams. “(1957)2 283
I.
Who is an employee
(a) Control
Banaanmuun v. Cheyne 2 TLR (Revd) 283
Selle v. Associated Motor Boat (1968) EA 123
Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v. Macdonald & Evans (1952)1 TLR 101,
111.
Fernardes v. Ruby cabs Limited Civ. Cas. 40-D-64; 21/10/64 (Unreported)
Cassidy v. Ministry of Health (1951)2 JB 343.
(b) Borrowed employees.
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (1947) AC1 Churcher v.
The Landing & Shipping Company of East Africa Ltd. (1957) E.A. 118.
Majige v. E.A Railway & Harbours & Others (1970) HCD 182.
(c ) Liability for casual delegation.
Karisa & Another v. Solanki & Another (1969) EA 318 Ormorod v. Crossville
Motor Service (1953)1 WLR 1120
II.
Liability in respect of employees.
(a) The course of employment.
LIoyd v. Grace. Smith & Co. (1912) AC 736
Century Insurance v. Northern Ireland Road Transport (1942) AC 509.
Muwonge v. Attorney – General of Uganda (1967) EA 17
(b) Relevant factor in determining whether the act was committed in the course of
employment.
(i)
Mode of doing the work the employee is employed to do. Century
Insurance v. Northern Ireland Road Transport (1042) AC 509
Muwonge v. Attornery-Gerneral of Uganda Beard v. London General Omnibus
(1900)2 QB 530.
(ii)
Authorized limits of time and space Patel v. Trandeus (1963) KLR8.
Mayanja v. Hoima Cotton Ltd. 7 ULR 64 Sera d/o Mussa v. Manji’s &
others Civil Case 18-D-64; 3/9/64, (Unreported) Piavano v. Attorney –
General of Uganda Civil Case No. 373 OF 1963 (Veltch p. 84) Storey v.
Ashton (1869) LR 4 Q.B 476.
Express prohibition
Candian Pacific Ty. Co. v. Lockhart (1942) AC 591 Limpus v. London
General Omnibus (1862) I.H. & C. 526 L.CC.C. v. Cattermoles (1953) I WLR
997 Twine v. Bean’s Express (1953) 62 TLR 155 Young v. Box & Con. (1951)
TLR 789.
(iii)
Wilful wrong of employee.
Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867). LR. 2 Ex. 259. LIoyd v. Grace,
Smith & Co. (1912) AC. 716 Morris v. C.W. Martin & Son (1966) 1 QB 716
British Road Services v. Arthus Crutchley (1967) 2 All E.R. 785.
Kisumu Tradign Stores v. Shah (1965) E.A 314 Jinder Singh v. Lukoma
Ginneries Ltd (1965) E.A 355.
III.
Employer and Independet Contractor
The employer is not liable merely because an independent contractor commits a tort in
the course of his employment: the employer is liable only if he himself is deemed to have
committed a tort.
(a) Authorizing him to commit a tort.
Allis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co. (1853))2 E.B. 767.
(b) Personal negligence on the part of the employer Robson v. Beaconsfield Rural
Council (1911)2 Ch. 188.
(c) Responsibility for the negligent acts of an independent contractor. Salsbury v.
Woodland (1970) 1 QB 324.
(d) Where the employer is not liable.
Philips v. Britani Hygienic Laundry (1912), 28 TLR. 494.
Cassidy v. Ministry of Health (1951)2 KB 343, at pg. 365.
3. Employers’ Liability
The duties which the employer owes at Common Law towards persons s/he
employs. These duties are now considerably supplemented by the vast number of
duties which are imposed on employers for the protection of workmen/ women
particularly in the industrial field.
An employer is liable if an accident is due to his/her own act or default – this is
the employer’s personal liability. Secondly an employers is also responsible for
the acts of their employees in the course of their employment – this is vicarious
liability. The distinction has become of less importance where the doctrine of
common employment has been abolished. This doctrine seems to apply in Est
Africa even today.
I.
Employer’s Personally Liability.
The employer’s duty is three fold:
(i)
Provision of a competent staff of men and women
(ii)
Provision of adequate materials.
(iii)
Safe system of work.
Speed v. Thomas Swisft (1943) KB 557, 563-564
Winter v. Cardiff R.D.S. (1950) 1 All E. R. 819
Hawkins v. Ian Ross (Castings) (1970)1 All ER 180.
Qual v. Haynes (1959) Ac. 743
N.B. An employer’s personal liability will only arise where the employee’s injuries were
sustained during the course of his/her, employment’. Cases in Vicarious Liability on this
point should be noted.
II Employer;s Vicarious Liability (doctorine of common employment.
*Priestly v. Fowler (9037)3 M&W. 1
Hutchninson v. Yourk and Newcastle By, (1850) Wx 343
Lancaster v. L.P.T.B. (1948)2 All ER 796
Speed v. Thomas Swift (1943) KB 557, at p. 569
Howells, “Priestly v. Fowler and the Factory Act” (1963) 26 MLR. 367
Johnson v. Lindsay & Co. (1891) AC. 371
Radc;ofee v. Ribble Motor Servoces (1939) AC. 215
*Nzarirehe v. Kagabaire (19968) EA 177.
A. Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Tanzania Cap. 263 (as amended)
Kenya Cap. 263 (as amended)
The Act procides for compensation to workmen for injuries suffere in the course of the
employment. The compensation paid is not based on fault (negligence) of the employer.
Although the Act needs substantial amendments, it nevertheless provides a better protect
for the employees than the common law rules. The Act is heavily weighed infavour of the
employee, e.g. S. 25B(T).
1. Compesation for injury. S.5 (1) (v).
2. Course of employment.
S. 5(2)
Compare this with vicarlous liability. See All Mahndi v. Abdulla Mohammed
(1961) EA 83
*Viran v. Dharamsi (1967) EA 132.
3. Compensation payable, amount payable for a particular injury, methods of calculating,
etc. ss. 6-12
Patel v. Patel (1964) EA 55
3. Notice of the accident s. 13
4. Out of court settlement s. 15(T)
Abdula v. Rudnap Zambia Ltd. (1971) EA 427
56. Determination of claim
s. 3(3) (T).
s. 16.
All Mahndi v. Abdulla Mohamed (161) EA 83
7. (Jurisdiction of the Court.
s.22 (T)
8. Independent Contractors
ss. 22 (T)
8. Compare this with vicarious liability and joint tortfeasors.
9. Common Law rights.
ss. 24 (T)
Can this section be said to have abolished the doctrine of common employement?
Abdula v. Rudnap Zambia Ltd. (1971) EA 427.
N.B.
The Act also provides for compensation for occupational diseases.
TOPIC FOUR: THE LAW BETWEEN NEIGHBOURS
1. Nuisance
2. 2. Liability for Dangerous Things.
3. Animals:
(i)
Cattle- Trespass
(ii)
Liability under Scienter Action.
Readings.
1. Winfield Jolowicz (11th Ed.) 352-472
2. Fleming on Torts (1977) 314-353.
3. The Law of Tort (9th ed).
4. Friedman, The Rise and fall of Rylands v. Fletcher (1956) 34 Can B. Rev. 810 823
5. Prosser, Selected Topics in the Law of Torts. Ch. 3
6. Huaraka pp. 267 -275 and 270-28845
7. Willams. D.W. Non-natural Use of Land (1973) Cl. 310.
8. The Fire Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774.
The Grass Fire (Control) Cap. 135
The Animal (Pounds) Cap. 154.
Cases
1. Ryalands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3. 330
2. Read v. Lyons (1946) AER 471
3. Richards v. Lothian (1913) AC. 263.
4. Bandali v. The Commissioner of Transport (1969) HCD n. 293
5. Salim Omar v. Jackton Ongea (1972) HCD n. 145
6. Peter v. Prince of Wales Theatre (1954)2 AER 533.
7. s,EATPM v. IIford Corps (1954)1 EAR 923.
8. Yahi Bicoli v. Eliangiringa Matemba (1971) HCD n. 420
9. Ruzebe Sweya v. Bural Lesse (1967) HCD n. 21
10. Hussein Kijuu v. Bura Lesse (1967) HCD n.
11. Cummings v. Granger (1977)1 AER 104
12. Endoshi v. Lema (1971) HCD n. 415
13. Charlesworth v. Naraiyi Rawji (1868) – 1918) ZLR 186
14. Nurdin Abdulhussien v. South British Insurance Co. Ltd (1952) 17 ACA
82.
15. Kitamirika v. Mutagubya (1963) EA 443.
16. Arima & Others v. Harial (1974) EA 557
17. AG. V. K. Mambula (1959) E. 665.
Articles:
1. Winfield, Nuisance as a Tort (1931) CLJ 189
2. West W.A. Nuisance or Tylands v. Rylands v. Fetcher (1966) 30 (Conv.
3. Noel, D.W. Nuisances from Land in its Nutural Condition 56 Harv. LR. 772.
4. Newalk The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949) 65 LQR 480
TOPIC FIVE: DEFAMATION
1. Distinction between libel and slander
2. Interpretarion
3. Publication
4. Defences
(i)
Justification
(ii)
Fair Comment
(iii)
Absolute privilege
(iv)
Qualified Priviledge.
Cases:
1. John Yamo v. Achieng (1970) HCD 10
2. Leonard Sawe v. L.DS. Nyakyi (1976) LRT n. 21
3. Novati Joseph v. Sebaotian Muzo (1975) LRT n.
4. Navati Joseph v. Sebaotian Muzo (1978) LRT n. 14.
5. Salum Hassan v. Changarawe Manyori (1979) LRT. 2
6. P.M. Jonatha v. Athuman Khalifan (1980)
7. Naiman Maro v. Zablon (1980) TLR 39
8. E.S. Mangat v. B. Sharma (1968) HCD 167
9. Eston Mwaipopo v. Simithy Manyafu (1969) HCD 192.
10. Thankers v. Uganda Argus (1972) EA. 80
11. Shah v. Uganda Argus (1972) EA 80
12. Shah v. New Africa Press Ltd (1970) EA. 352
13. Herman v. Ndara (1971) HCD n. 93
14. Cosmas Faoustin (1971) HCD n. 349.
TOPIC SEVEN: EFFECT OF DEATH ON TORT LIABILITY
1. (i) Death as a around for liability
(iii)
Survival of causes of action.
(iv)
Joint.
2. (I) Several Tort Feasor
TOPIC SEVEN: GOVERNMENT LIABILITY
1. Crown Immunity against tort action
2. The Government Proceeding Act. 1967.
3. Liability of the Government for wrong committeed by its servants while
performing statutory duties.
Readings:
1. Steet, Government Liability, Cambridge U.P. 1953.
2. Hogg. P. W. Liability of the Crown in Australia, New
United Kingdom.
Zealand and the
3. Glanville Williams, Crown Proceedings, (1948)
4. Bell, P.M. Crown Proceedings, Sweet & Maxwell (1948)
5. Flemming Law of Torts Ch. 22.
6. Winfield, Law of Torts.
ARTICLES
1. Treitel, Crown Proceedings: Some Recent Developments (1957) Public Law 321.
2. Street, H. Tort Liability of the state (1947) 47 Mich. LR. 341.
3. Tennant, Servants of the Crown (1932) 10 CAN. LR 15
4. The 1st Report of the Law Commission of India – LIABILITY OF THE STATE
IN TORT. 1955, Government of India Ministry of Law.
TOPIC EIGHT: FAMILY TORTS
(I)
Seduction
(II)
Adultery
(III)
Enticement, etc.
Reading.
1. Winfield on Tort (10th Ed. ) pp. 439-443.
2. Fleming on Torts pp. 635-66
3. Huaraka pp. 289-295
Cases
1. All Yusufu v. Chief Makongoro (1930) *TLR.
2. Chono v. Gulanwa (1971) HCD. N. 320
3. Halfan Salum v. V. Hanifa Kondo (1969) TLR 6
4. Mwalwange v. Mwalwajo (1972) HCD TLR
5. Said Sefu v. Aidan Mwambeta (1969) TLR
6. Yahaya Abeid v. Mrisho Hussein (1976) LRT. 56.