Mrs. Karanja and Mrs. Waithaka are neighbours. Their sons, Mwaura Karanja and Mwangi Waithaka, had a fight and Mwangi was hurt.
In annoyance, Mrs. Waithaka hurled a stone at Mrs. Karanja but the stone did not hit Mrs. Karanja. Mrs. Waithaka rushed to her house and came out with a bucket of water which she splashed on Mrs. Karanja making her clothes wet. Mrs. Karanja intends to sue Mrs. Waithaka.
Advise Mrs. Karanja on the kinds of tort that she may seek redress from. (12 marks)
ANSWER
• This problem is based on the law of torts. In this case Mrs. Waithaka hurled a stone at Mrs. Karanja but missed but subsequently succeeded in splashing Mrs. Karanja with water making her clothes wet. Mrs. Karanja is aggrieved the acts of Mrs. Waithaka and has a number of causes of action for which she can seek judicial redress. Firstly the hurling of the stone Mrs. Waithaka to Mrs. Karanja amounts to assault as is created apprehension of some contact with her person. Secondly, the splashing of Mrs. Karanja with water amounted to battery as there was a physical contact with her person.
• It therefore follows that Mrs. Karanja can sue Mrs. Waithaka in damages for assault and battery.
• These torts are actionable per se and Mrs. Karanja does not have to prove any loss for Mrs. Waithaka to be held liable.
• My advice to Mrs. Karanja is based on the general law of torts.
Related Posts
-
-
-
The shares of Promotion Limited, a private company are held members of three families, that is, the family of Mr. Karanja, Mr. Mutisya and Mr. Otieno. Mr. Karanja and Mr. Mutisya hold 90% of the company‟s shares. However, they feel that, the company is in need of further capital but due to the squabbles among the families, Mr. Otieno is not willing to inject additional funds so long as Mr. Karanja still holds any shares in the company. Further, Mr. Karanja and Mr. Mutisya have reasonable cause to believe and do in fact believe that the family of Mr. Otiengo is running their own business which is competing with that of Promotion Limited. It is known as a fact that Mr. Otieno is obtaining information as a member of Promotion Limited, which he is using to the benefit of his competing business. To resolve the problems, Mr. Karanja and Mr. Mutisya propose to alter the company‟s articles of association adding two new articles. The first article will enable the shareholders of 90% of the company‟s shares to compulsorily acquire the shares of the minority shareholder. The second one will require any shareholder who carries on competing business with company‟s business to transfer his shares to the nominee of the directors. Required: i) State the restrictions imposed both common law and statute law upon a company’s power to alter its articles of association ii) Discuss the validity of the proposed alteration
