Detinue

The Federal High Court has no jurisdiction in tort of detinue. The appropriate Court, in the circumstance, was the High Court of Delta State. Section 230(1) (p) & (s) of the 1979 Constitution, as introduced thereto by Decree 107 of 1993 is in pari materia with their successors, Section 251(1) (p) & (s) of the 1999 Constitution. By these provisions, the Constitution does not intend to divest the State High Courts of their jurisdiction over disputes relating to torts or simple contracts. This Court makes the point loud and clear in ONUORAH v. KRPC LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (pt. 256) 1356 and all the decisions following which cited it with approval.

IKPEKPE V. WARRI REFINERY & PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED &

There needs be no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the appellants before he can maintain an action in detinue or wrongful ejectment against the said appellants. This is because the right to approach the courts for redress against a legally recognised wrong belongs to all and every citizen and any person who alleges an infringement of any of his legal rights may seek redress in any court of law. See: Chief Shittu v. The Solicitor General of Kwara State (1984) 5 NCLR 661.

At common law, a claim in detinue lay al the suit of a person who has an immediate right to the possession of the goods in issue against another who is in actual possession of them, and who, upon proper demand. failed or refused to deliver them up without lawful excuse. See: Alicia Hosiery Ltd. v. Brown Shipley & Co. Ltd. (1970) 1 QB 195 at 207; Garrett v. Arthur Churchill (Glass) Ltd. (1970) 1 QB 92.