LINDA TAWIAH vs ERIC OWUSU BERKO

The Plaintiff, has presented her case, as if it is a criminal matter. She alleges stealing of personal items by the Defendant.

Indeed, from her Statement of Claim, it is gleaned that, the matter of the alleged stealing by the Defendant was reported to the Suntreso Police Station by her.

It is without doubt that, stealing is a crime and it is so dealt with in appropriate circumstances, by the criminal process of this Country by the Republic against the accused person.

However, when such a matter comes to a Civil Court, such as it is in this case, the criminal background from which the facts of the case is alleged, sounds in the tort of conversion not stealing.

It is common to hear students of the law, say that, whilst stealing is to criminal law, conversion is to a civil action in tort.

What then is conversion? It was defined as follows:

“It is conversion when a person entitled to the possession of a chattel is permanently deprived of that possession and the chattel is converted to the use of someone else. Here the wrong is not merely an interference with the Plaintiff’s possession or interest in his chattels but also an injury to his right or titled in them.”

See Standard Chartered Bank (Ghana) v Nelson [1999] JELR, 66323 (SC) where the above statement was relied upon from Clerk and Lindsell on Tort (16 Edition).

The authorities further say as follows:

“Conversion of goods can occur in so many different circumstances that framing a precise definition of universal application is well-nigh impossible. In general, the basic features of the tort are threefold.

First, the defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the rights of the owner (or other person entitled to possession). Second, the conduct was deliberate, not accidental. Third, the conduct was so extensive an encroachment on the rights of the owner as to exclude him from use and possession of the goods.

The contrast is with lesser acts of interference. If these causes damage, they may give rights to claims for trespass or in negligence but it did not constitute conversion.

Mere unauthorised retention of another’s goods is not conversion of them. Mere possession of another's goods without title is not necessarily inconsistent with the rights of the owner.

To constitute conversion, detention must be adverse to the owner, excluding him from the goods. ***It must be accompanied by an intention to keep the goods