
False imprisonment
Doctrine in Tort. 16 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.
- Angelina O'reilly & George W. Page [1921] SLCA 1 (30 June 1921)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1921
Principle established: A public officer does not ratify an unlawful subordinate arrest merely by briefly detaining the person to prepare a summons and arranging lawful conveyance.
- Angelina O'Reilly v George W. Page (1 of 1914) [1914] SLCA 1 (30 June 1914)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1914
Principle established: A public officer does not ratify an unlawful arrest by a subordinate merely by detaining the person briefly to prepare a summons and sending them home in company with a constable.
- Bird v Jones
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1845
Principle established: The restraint must be total; blocking one route while leaving another reasonable exit is not imprisonment.
- Foulah v Kolifa Rowala Tribal Auth, 1950-56 ALR S.L. 142
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1950-56
Principle established: A tribal authority violates natural justice when a chief sits as judge in his own cause, and subjecting a person to complete detention without lawful authority constitutes false imprisonment.
- Freeman v Luke, 1972-73 ALR S.L. 94
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1972-73
Principle established: A preliminary point of law raised in pleadings that would substantially dispose of an action should be determined before trial under the rules of court.
- Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1915
Principle established: Where a person consents to confinement on certain terms, there is no false imprisonment.
- Herring v Boyle
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1834
Principle established: Under the older view, the claimant had to know of the restraint.
- James W. Russell v John Kombe (CC 369 of 1960) [1962] SLSC 30 (4 March 1962)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1962
Principle established: A judicial officer acting bona fide within jurisdiction in signing an arrest warrant is protected from civil liability for false imprisonment.
- James W. Russell v John Kombe (CC 369 of 1960) [1962] SLSC 52 (4 May 1962)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1962
Principle established: A person who acts judicially in signing an arrest warrant is statutorily protected from liability for false imprisonment.
- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1919
Principle established: Knowledge of the restraint is not required; it goes only to damages (Atkin LJ).
- Murray v Ministry of Defence
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1988
Principle established: A person may be falsely imprisoned while unaware, e.g. while asleep, though damages may then be nominal.
- Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1910
Principle established: Where a person's liberty is subject to a reasonable condition he has accepted, restraining him until it is met is not false imprisonment.
- Thulla v S (CR APP 3 of 1972) [1972] SLCA 1282 (18 April 1972)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1972
Principle established: False imprisonment requires proof of direct authorization or direction of an unlawful arrest by a ministerial officer, and providing information upon which the officer acts at discretion creates no liability.
- Thulla v State, 1972-73 ALR S.L. 90
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1972-73
Principle established: False imprisonment lies against a private person who directs or authorises an unlawful arrest by a ministerial officer, but not if the officer exercises independent discretion on information supplied.
- United Africa Company Limited v John C. Samuels (CIV APP 8 of 1961) [1962] SLCA 43 (5 March 1962)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1962
Principle established: In an action for malicious prosecution against a principal, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the principal's agent instituted the criminal proceedings and had authority to do so.
- United Africa Company LTD v John Coby Samuels [1962] SLCA 16 (5 March 1962)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1962
Principle established: To establish malicious prosecution against a corporation, the plaintiff must prove that the corporation was the prosecutor and that the acting employee had authority to initiate criminal proceedings on its behalf.
