INTRODUCTION

1.1 Meaning of Law of Tort

Tort is the Latin word tortum which mean to twist, is the conduct which is twisted, crooked, or
not straight wrongful act whereby wrongdoer violates some legal right vested in another person1.
Professor Winfield define tort as it is an infringement of a right of a private individual giving the
right compensation at the suit of injured party.
Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust as per
section 2(m)2.
When a tort is committed, the law allows the victim to claim money, known as
Remedies for compensate for the commission of the tort. This is paid by the person who
Committed an offence of the tort (known as the tortfeasor). Other remedies may be available as
well.In some cases, the victims will only be able to claim damages if they can prove that the tort
caused some harm, but in others, which are described as actionable per se, they only need to
prove that the relevant tort has been committed. For example, landowners can claim damages in
tort from someone trespassing on their land, even though no harm has been done by the
trespasser.3

1.2 Meaning of Human Rights

Human rights are those rights which all person are born with and they cannot be taken away or
removed by Anybody.
In the case of Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General 4 the late justice Lugakangira states that
“Human rights are Fundamental rights not gifts from the state, their inhere in a person by a
reason of his birth and therefore a clear to the state and the law”.

1
Nayab Naseer,(2017),An introduction to the law of torts,Smashwords Edition
2
The Limitation Act ,1963
3
Elliot&frannces Quinn,(2009),TORT LAW,7th Edition,Pearson Longman,
4
(1995)T.L.R 31
MAIN BODY
2.1 YES, LAW OF TORT VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS

Malice Prosecution is an action for damages brought by one against another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceedings has been instituted maliciously and without
probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor of the
defendant therein. The action terminated should be one begun in malice without probable cause
to believe the charges thereon can be sustained and is instituted with the intention of injuring
another and which terminate in favor of the person prosecuted5.
Elements of malice prosecution
 Malice-acting with inexcusable intent to injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate
 Absence of probable cause-existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief of prosecutor, that the person charged is guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted
 Acquittal-presuppose that criminal information is filed in court and final judgment is
rendered dismissing the case against the accused6.

(i)When people commit an offence of malice prosecution violates the human rights in Article 12 7
which provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy family,
home, or correspondence, nor attack to upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has right to be
protected by the law against such attacks. So to sue a person without a proof of committing an
offence may destroy his or her reputation which is infringement of human rights.

5
Elliot & Frannces Quinn 2009,Tort Law,7th Edition,Pearson Longman
6
Ibid
7
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)1948
(ii) When people commit an offence of malice prosecution violate the human rights of person life
as per article 148where by a man’s life is put in danger to lose his life or liberty.

False imprisonment means consists of depriving the claimant of freedom of movement without
lawful justification9. There is no need to prove the knowledge that one is restrained is not
necessary to constitute the tort. In the case of Collins v Wilcock10, false imprisonment was
defined as ‘the unlawful imposition of restraint on another’s freedom of movement.

Elements of false imprisonment

(i)Restraint is necessary

The tort is committed if there is any act which prevents free movement. This

does not necessarily mean that the claimant must be imprisoned, although
8
Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania of 1977
9
Vivienne Hardwood,(2000),Principle of Tort Law,4 th Edition.Cavendish publishing limited.Great Britain
10

(1984)
some of the most serious examples of false imprisonment in recent years have

involved the detention of people for questioning in respect of crimes which

they did not commit, and for which there were no reasonable grounds of

suspicion in the case of White v WP Brown11.Any restriction which prevents a person

leaving a place amounts to false imprisonment.

Restraint must be ‘total’

The restraint imposed upon the claimant must be total restraint to amount to

false imprisonment, so, if there was a reasonable escape route, there will be no

 false imprisonment12.

Knowledge of
restraint at the time is not necessary

The claimant does not need to know that he has been restrained in order to

succeed in his action. In Meering v Graham White Aviation Co Ltd13, it was

held that a person could be falsely imprisoned while unconscious.

False imprisonment violates human rights in Article 9 14 that provides that no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Also, as per Article 17 15 provided right to
freedom of movement and right to live in any part of united republic of Tanzania and right not to
be forced to leave Tanzania or to be expelled.
The following are examples of the cases that show false imprisonment
In the case of Lawrence v Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police 16 The claimant was arrested,
suspected of holiday cottage arsons, and held in isolation for 21 hours except for a single brief

11
(1983)
12
Vivviene
13
(1920)
14
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)1948
15
Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania of 1977
16
(1985)
interview. The length of detention was held to be unreasonable, and he was awarded £600
damages.

Also in the case of White v WP Brown 17 The claimant was an elderly lady who had been detained
in a changing cubicle for 15 minutes by a store detective after she was thought birthday card. Her
handbag had been taken away and searched, and eventually the police took her to the police
station in the back of a police van. She received £520 damages for false imprisonment and £775
for trespass to her handbag.

2.2 NO, LAW OF TORT PROTECTS HUMAN RIGHTS

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
 Law of tort protects human rights of an individual to be detained or restrained without
lawful justification. It’s an offence to commit that offence that may lead to remedies such
as compensation, injunction, and other remedies. It makes individual to be aware and
17
(1983)
 careful about another freedom of movement from one place to another. It’s protected
people from unlawful arrest or detain as same as its provided under Article 15(2) 18 which
states that an individual has a right as free person, no person should be arrested,
imprisoned or detained or deprived of his freedom only if under the circumstances and in
accordance with procedures prescribed by law and if it is execution of judgment, order or
sentence passed by court of law.
MALICE PROSECUTION
 Law of tort protect the human rights whereby it compensate
plaintiff who lose his property as when he or she is forced to expend his money to necessary
charges to acquit himself/herself of the crime which he/she is accused.
Law of tort protect a personal

18
Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania of 1977
CONCLUSION
On my view I stand with an answer that law of tort protect human rights from people who violate
the rights of others and persons who are liable for tort offence had to pay for the damages which
they cause to other people such as nominal damages, contemptuous damages, compensatory and
exemplary damages, prospective damages, injunctions, specific restitution of property .
Tort has also been concerned with protecting people from intentional
interference through actions for assault and battery and false imprisonment;
and the reputation, through the torts of libel, slander, malicious prosecution and injurious
falsehood. Purely financial interests, economic and trading
interests have more recently been brought within the province of tort, and
their scope is still unclear, but personal property has been protected by tort
for hundreds of years.

References
Books
Case law
Statutes