Detinue

The recurring situations are recognisable and they come up constantly.

A vehicle left with a mechanic or a workshop, where a dispute about the bill arises and the vehicle is kept.

Goods held by a warehouse, a freight forwarder or a clearing agent after a disagreement about charges.

Equipment left on site or with a contractor after a contract ends.

Title documents, files or original certificates held by a former lawyer, agent or accountant after the relationship breaks down.

Personal property retained by a landlord after a tenancy, or by a former employer after employment ends.

The practical steps for a claimant are ordered. Establish and document ownership, with receipts, registration documents or invoices. Make a clear written demand for the return of specific goods, allowing a stated short period, delivered in a way that can be proved. Keep the response, including silence. Then bring the claim describing the goods precisely, because a court is being asked to order the delivery up of identified property.

A claimant should also consider an interim application to preserve the goods where there is a risk they will be sold or moved.

Nigerian courts hear these claims regularly, and the lien defence is what decides many of them.

A person who has a lawful lien over goods is entitled to retain them until they are paid. A repairer who has worked on a vehicle has a lien over it for the cost of the work. A warehouse or carrier may have a lien for its charges, depending on the contract. Where a valid lien exists, the refusal to return is not wrongful and detinue fails.

So the first question in most Nigerian detinue disputes is not whether the claimant owns the goods, which is usually accepted, but whether the person holding them has a right to do so until paid.

That reframes the practical response. A vehicle owner disputing a mechanic's bill is often better served by paying under protest and recovering the vehicle, then disputing the charge separately, than by leaving the vehicle for months while it deteriorates and the claim proceeds.

The second point is the demand, and it should be in writing. A demand letter identifying the goods, asserting ownership, requiring return by a stated date and stating that proceedings will follow is what converts a dispute into a claim. Verbal demands are asserted and denied, and a documented one is not.

The third is valuation. Where the goods cannot be returned, the court awards their value, and the relevant value is generally assessed at the point the court determines rather than at the date of the original detention. Evidence of value therefore matters, and a claimant should have it ready.

And for anybody holding goods, the position is worth understanding from the other side. Retaining property without a lien or a contractual right to do so exposes you to a claim for its value plus damages for the detention, and using somebody's goods as leverage in an unrelated dispute is precisely what detinue exists to address.

Three claims about interference with property, distinguished by the nature of the interference.

Detinue is about detention. The defendant has the goods and refuses to return them after a demand. The relief can include delivery up of the goods themselves, which is what makes it the right claim where the claimant wants the property back.

Conversion is about a dealing inconsistent with the owner's rights. Selling the goods, destroying them, giving them away or otherwise treating them as your own. It is complete at the moment of the act, and the remedy is damages rather than return, because the goods are frequently gone.

Trespass to goods is about direct interference with possession. Damaging or moving goods without authority, without necessarily denying the owner's title.

The claims overlap and are frequently pleaded together. A defendant who first refused to return goods and then sold them has given the claimant both detinue and conversion.

A valid lien defeats the claim entirely, so the strength of the defendant's asserted right to hold the goods matters more than the claimant's ownership.

The goods must also be identifiable and specific. A claim for the return of unascertained goods does not fit the remedy.

Where the goods have been sold or destroyed, delivery up is impossible and the claim becomes one for value, which puts the claimant back into a damages assessment.

And the process takes time, during which vehicles, machinery and perishable goods deteriorate. Winning after two years is often worse than paying under protest and recovering the property immediately.