The Law Classroom

🌟 **Admission Alert!** 🌟

🚀 **Unlock Your Potential with IMATT College!** 🚀

📚 **Programmes Available:**
1. **Bachelor of Laws with Honours**
2. **BSc Business Administration**
3. **BSc Human Resources**
4. **BSc Procurement and Supply Chain**
5. **BSc Information Technology**
6. **Higher Diploma in Nursing**

⏳ **Don't Miss Out!** Admission forms are waiting for you at IMATT College, 14 Hennessy Street, Kingtom. 📝🎓

📱 **For More Information:** WhatsApp us or
📞 Call us at 078900082 now for quick assistance and to request admission forms.

Deadline 30th August,2024

🌟 **Take the First Step Towards Your Bright Future!** 🌟

🚀 **Join Us at IMATT College and Elevate Your Career Today!** 🚀

If you find yourself blessed with success, remember that it doesn’t mean others have failed. Sometimes, they are simply waiting for their turn.

Everyone’s journey unfolds in its own time, and their moment will come.
Quadic Bangura, Esq. 🧐

HOW TO MAINTAIN A CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM: A Guide to Practicing Lawyers

Maintaining a professional and respectful demeanor in the courtroom is crucial in ensuring that you and opposing counsel can maintain a cordial relationship outside of the courtroom. Here are some tips on how to do this:

1. REMAIN CIVIL: When you're arguing a case in court, it's important to maintain a respectful tone towards opposing counsel. Avoid personal attacks or being derogatory toward them.

2. BE PREPARED: Being well-prepared for your argument will prevent you from getting flustered or aggressive if things don't go your way. It's also a sign of respect towards the judge.

3. STICK TO THE FACTS: Try to avoid putting a personal spin on your argument. Instead, try to focus on the facts and the law.

4. TREAT OPPOSING COUNSEL AS A COLLEAGUE: Remember that even though you're arguing on opposite sides, you're both part of the same profession. Treat opposing counsel with the respect you would afford to any other colleague.

5. DON'T TAKE THINGS PERSONALLY: Sometimes, things can get heated in court. Try not to take it personally if opposing counsel becomes aggressive in their arguments.

6. REACH OUT AFTERWARD: After the case is resolved, it's good practice to reach out to opposing counsel and extend an olive branch. A simple email or message congratulating them on their arguments can go a long way in building a professional relationship.

©️ The Law Classroom ⚖️ 📖

Santigie was moving from his 10th story flat to a small house and had been asked to remove all his furniture. He had a very heavy solid oak wardrobe that he couldn't get down the stairs and the lift was not working. With desperation clouding his judgment, Santigie considered throwing the wardrobe off the balcony and, despite the possibility of serious harm, he proceeded to do so as he did not think anyone would trace it back to him. Consequently, one of the teenagers hanging out below the balcony was hit and died from his injuries in hospital. Santigie has been charged with murder.

Will Santigie be found guilty of the offence of murder?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The actus reus of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace, and the mens rea is either intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) or subjective recklessness as to the risk of death or GBH.

In the given scenario, Santigie threw a heavy wardrobe off the balcony of his 10th story flat, despite the possibility of serious harm to others. As a result, one of the teenagers hanging out below the balcony was hit and died from his injuries in hospital.

It can be argued that Santigie had the intention to cause GBH, which resulted in the death of the teenager. The fact that he proceeded to throw a heavy oak wardrobe from the 10th story balcony, despite the potential danger to others, shows that he foresaw the risk of serious harm and took the steps to bring that risk about. This is known as subjective recklessness, and provides the necessary mens rea for murder.

In the case of R v Woollin [1999] AC 82, the court established that the test for subjective recklessness is whether the defendant foresaw that death or serious harm was a virtual certainty, and went ahead with his actions regardless. In Santigie's case, it can be argued that given the height of the balcony and the weight of the wardrobe, he must have foreseen that serious harm or death was a virtual certainty. Therefore, he acted recklessly and with the intention to cause GBH, which resulted in the death of the teenager.

In conclusion, based on the given facts and the legal principles discussed above, Santigie can be found guilty of the offence of murder.

FROM OUR WHATSAPP CONTACT 👇🏽

QUESTION:
What are the major elements of crime?

ANSWER:
In English criminal law, a crime is typically composed of several key elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish criminal liability. These elements vary depending on the specific offence, but I will outline some general principles.

1. ACTUS REUS: This Latin term refers to the guilty act or the physical element of a crime. It entails the voluntary commission of a prohibited act or the omission of a legally required act. The actus reus element ensures that liability is based on the individual's actions rather than their mere thoughts or intentions.

2. MENS REA: Also a Latin term, mens rea refers to the guilty mind or the mental element of a crime. It pertains to the defendant's state of mind at the time the offence was committed. Different crimes require different levels of mens rea, ranging from intention to recklessness or negligence. Proof of mens rea ensures that individuals are held accountable for their blameworthy mental states.

3. CAUSATION: A crucial element in criminal law, causation establishes a link between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm or consequences. There are two types of causation: factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation requires demonstrating that the defendant's actions were a substantial cause of the harm, while legal causation requires establishing that the defendant's actions were a legally recognized cause of the harm.

4. CONCURRENCE: This principle emphasizes that the actus reus and the mens rea must coincide in time for criminal liability to arise. In other words, the guilty mind must accompany the guilty act. This element ensures that individuals are not punished for mere thoughts or intentions without the corresponding criminal conduct.

5. STRICT LIABILITY: While most crimes require proof of both actus reus and mens rea, there are certain offences where mens rea is not a necessary element. These offences, known as strict liability offences, impose liability regardless of the defendant's mental state. Typically, strict liability applies to regulatory or public welfare offences where public safety is paramount.

It is worth noting that this overview provides a general understanding of the major elements of crime in English law. The specific elements and their application may vary depending on the offence under consideration. To fully comprehend the elements of a particular crime, it is essential to refer to the relevant statutory provisions and judicial interpretations established through case law precedent.

©️ The Law Classroom ⚖️ 📖

FROM OUR WHATSAPP CONTACT 👇🏽

QUESTION
Most of the time, when you report an incident of malicious damage to the police, the first question they ask is, 'Do you know the suspect?' If you answer no, the police often conclude that there is no malice on the part of the suspect towards damaging your property, and that is the end of the matter.

I want to share a scenario that happened to my friend at Waterloo market.

"We were passing through the crowded Tombo market in a vehicle, surrounded by people, motorcycles (okadas), and other vehicles. A laborer carrying a heavy load was pushed by a pedestrian, causing the load to fall onto the front windscreen of our vehicle, damaging it. We took the laborer to the Waterloo Police Station and explained the situation as I described above. The duty officer informed us that there was malice from the laborer to destroy our windscreen, so the laborer was let go."

Could you please explain to me what constitutes malice in the context of malicious damage?

ANSWER 👇🏽
In English law, the offence of MALICIOUS DAMAGE entails the deliberate and intentional destruction or damage to another person's property without lawful justification. The key element here is the presence of malice, which refers to the mental state of the perpetrator at the time of the act.

Malice typically involves ill will, spite, or a desire to cause harm to another person's property.

To address your specific scenario, it appears that the laborer's action was unintentional, as he was pushed by a pedestrian, causing the load to fall onto your vehicle's front windscreen. In such a situation, it may be challenging to establish the required element of malice, as the damage was not inflicted deliberately, neither done recklessly.

However, it is essential to note that each case is unique and depends on its individual circumstances. English case law provides valuable insights into the interpretation and application of legal principles. While I am unable to refer to specific case laws without mentioning the source, I can certainly outline some notable cases that have shaped the understanding of malice in malicious damage cases.

One influential case is R v. Smith (1974) 1 WLR 1280, which emphasized that malice may be inferred from the intentional act itself, irrespective of the defendant's personal animosity towards the property owner. Thus, even if there is no direct evidence of ill will or spite, the deliberate nature of the act may establish the presence of malice.

Another relevant case is R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 QB 396, where the court held that malice can be established if the accused acted with a reckless disregard for the property or the potential consequences of their actions. This case highlighted that malice can extend beyond direct intentions, encompassing a wider spectrum of willful and reckless behavior.

©️ The Law Classroom ⚖️ 📖

FROM OUR WHATSAPP CONTACT. 👇🏽
Kindly help answer this Law of Contract problem question below:

QUESTION:
Desmond offered to sell his Laptop computer to Abibatu on Saturday May 6th, 2023, for One Million Leones (le1,000,000) and stated that the offer would remain open untill Monday 8th May 2023.

And Abibatu asked within this time if it would be possible to make a split payment over a period of time rather than at one point. Desmond did not respond to the enquiry but decided to proceed with the sale to another interested buyer.

Without response, Abibatu still within the agreed time frame (before Monday 8th May, 2023) accepted the original offer made, but the Laptop has been sold already.

Abibatu then sought a claim against Desmond when he refuse to recognize the contract.
ADVISE DESMOND.

ANSWER:
In the contract dispute involving Abibatu and Desmond, it is crucial to examine the situation in light of the pertinent principles of English contract law and consider any applicable case precedents. Based on the presented facts, the key issues to address are the validity of the offer, the communication of acceptance, and the impact of the subsequent sale of the laptop.

1. VALIDITY OF THE OFFER:
Desmond offered to sell his laptop to Abibatu for One Million Leones (Le 1,000,000) with the condition that the offer would remain open until Monday, May 8th, 2023. To determine the validity of this offer and its acceptance, we can refer to the case of CARLILL vs CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY [1893] 1 QB 256. This case established that an offer can be made to the general public, and acceptance can be communicated by anyone who fulfills the conditions outlined in the offer. Therefore, as long as Abibatu communicated her acceptance within the specified time frame, her acceptance should be considered valid.

2. COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE:
Abibatu inquired about the possibility of making a split payment, but Desmond did not respond to her inquiry and proceeded to sell the laptop to another buyer. According to the case of FELTHOUSE vs BRINDLEY [1862] EWHC CP J 35, for a contract to be formed, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. Silence or mere inaction cannot constitute acceptance unless there is an existing contractual relationship between the parties. Since Desmond did not respond to Abibatu's query, there was no communication of acceptance from her side.

3. EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT SALE:
Desmond sold the laptop to another buyer before Abibatu's acceptance was communicated. The issue here is whether the contract was formed before the subsequent sale, thus binding Desmond to the original offer. The case of BYRNE & Co vs LEON VAN TIENHOVEN & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344 is relevant in this context. It established that acceptance is effective when it is posted, meaning that once Abibatu communicated her acceptance, it became binding on Desmond even if he was unaware of it. Therefore, the subsequent sale of the laptop does not invalidate the existence of the contract between Abibatu and Desmond.

Based on the above analysis, it is likely that Desmond is bound by the contract, despite the subsequent sale of the laptop.

:
Please be reminded that this response provides general guidance and should not be considered as a substitute for personalized legal advice.

Kindly press the LIKE button of this post.

LAND LAW

NOTES ON FIXTURES

Fixtures are a category of material objects that, when physically attached to the land, are considered to become part of the realty. In legal terms, land includes both naturally and artificially attached objects. When objects are artificially attached, the question arises as to whether they automatically become part of the land, following the Latin maxim "quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit," which means "whatever is attached to the soil becomes part of it." Chattels that are affixed to the land lose their character as chattels and pass with the ownership of the land. However, this presumption can be challenged by evidence of a contrary intention. Fixtures refer to things attached to the land in a way that they become part of it, but not everything attached to the land automatically becomes a fixture.

In the case of Elliot v. Bishop (1854) 10 Ex; 496, 507, Martin B. noted:
"The old rule, as laid down in the old books, states that if the tenant or occupier of a house or land annexes anything to the freehold, neither they nor their representatives can later remove it, based on the maxim 'quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit.' However, society has progressed, and tenants have affixed valuable and expensive items to the freehold for the purpose of convenient or luxurious occupation or trade. It became apparent to all that denying the tenant the right to remove such items at their discretion and considering them automatically forfeited to the fee simple owner by the act of annexation was unjust. Thus, a right arose, supported by both the courts of law and equity, for the temporary owner or occupier of real property, or their representative, to disannex and remove certain articles that were annexed to the freehold. These articles have been termed 'fixtures.' The best definition I am aware of is the one provided in the judgment of this court in Hallen v. Runder (1 C.M & R 266), which states that fixtures are articles that were initially personal chattels but, despite being annexed by a temporary occupier to the freehold, remain removable and, consequently, sellable at the discretion of the person who affixed them."

Determining whether a chattel has been so affixed to the land as to become part of it can be challenging. In Reynolds v. Ashby (1904) AC 466, it was stated that this is a question of law for the judges and depends on two primary considerations: the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation.

a.) The Degree of Annexation - The first and main criterion is whether the object can be easily removed. Prima facie, a chattel becomes a fixture if it has been permanently affixed to the land or building. It must be physically fastened to or substantially connected with the land or building. Merely placing or laying a chattel on the land, regardless of its weight, does not automatically make it a fixture, even if it subsequently sinks into the ground (see He Dibble Ltd. v. Moore (1970) 2 QB 181 (1969) 3 ALL ER 1465).

In Holland v. Hodgson (1872), Blackburn J. stated:
"Perhaps the true rule is that articles not attached to the land other than by their own weight should not be considered part of the land unless the circumstances indicate an intention for them to be part of the land. The burden of proof lies on those asserting that they have ceased to be chattels. On the contrary, an article that is slightly affixed to the land should be considered part of the land unless the circumstances show that it was intended to remain a chattel all along. The burden of proof lies on those arguing that itshould be considered a chattel."

b.) The Purpose of Annexation - The second criterion is whether the object was affixed to the land for permanent improvement or for greater enjoyment and use as a chattel, or for a temporary purpose. In the case of Hellawell v. Eastwood (1851), the intention behind the annexation determines whether the chattel becomes a fixture or not. If the intention was to effect a permanent improvement of the land or building, it is considered a fixture; otherwise, it is not.

Blackburn J. provided an example in Holand v. Hodgson (1872), stating that blocks of stones placed one on top of the other without mortar or cement to form a dry stone wall would become part of the land. However, if the same stones were stacked on top of each other in a builder's yard for convenience, they would remain chattels. On the other hand, an article can be firmly fixed to the land but still not intended to be part of it. For instance, an anchor of a large ship, though firmly fixed on the ground to bear the strain of the cable, does not become part of the land. Similarly, an anchor fixed in the soil to bear the strain of a suspension bridge chain will be part of the land.

Contrasting Jordan v. May (1947) ALL ER 421 (1947) QB 427 with Buckland v. Butterfield (1820) 2 Brod, B 45, both cases deal with the degree of annexation. In Buckland v. Butterfields, it was held that a conservatory attached to a house by eight cantilevers, each nine inches long, formed part of the land. This is significant because if one intends to retain and remove such a fixture when selling the freehold estate in the land, they must specifically contract to exclude the fixture from the garden of the house being sold.

In Berkely v. Poulett (1976) 242, estate gazette 39, a large marble statue weighing nearly half a ton was not regarded as part of the land because it was standing on a plinth and not fixed down in any way.

The basic rule is that anything annexed to land becomes part of the land. However, the courts have recognized that something merely affixed to facilitate display or to steady it is not considered part of the land. For example, in LEIGH V. TAILOR (1902) AC 157, a tapestry tacked to strips of wood, which were then affixed to the wall, was not considered part of the land. The degree of annexation in this case was only what was necessary for the tapestry's display. In HULME V. BRIGHAM (1943) KB 152, printing machines weighing between 9 to 12 tons were not regarded as fixtures, even though they were attached to motors fixed to the floor. In this case, the degree of annexation was slight and necessary only to stabilize the motor. See also SIMMONS V. MIDFORD (1909) 2 ALL ER 269.

In rare circumstances, something not physically fixed to the land but appearing to be an integral part of it may be regarded as part of the land for legal purposes. D. EYNCOURT V. GREGORY (1866) LR 3 Eq 382 provides the best example, where stone statues, seats, garden vases, tapestries, and pictures hanging on the walls were considered part of the land, as they formed an integral architectural design of the house. Therefore, the existence of a "master plan" regarding the property can render items part of the land, even without actual annexation.

Another illustration provided by Blackburn J. in HOLLAND V. HODGSON(1872) LR 7CP 328 at Pg. 335 is that a pile of stones lying in a builder's yard would not form part of the land it is on. However, if the same stones were used to construct a dry stone wall on a farm, even without mortar or any method of fixing the wall to the ground, it would be considered part of the land.

In PHILLIPS V. LAMDIN (1949) 2 KB 33; (1949) 1 ALL ER 770, the question of fixtures could arise between a vendor and a purchaser, executor of a fee simple owner and a devisee, mortgagor and mortgagee, or between a lessor and a lessee. In the case of leases, the law allows a lease fixture, as seen in SMITH V. CITY PETROLEUM CO. LTD. (1940) 71 ALL ER 260. See also POOLE'S CASE (1703)1 SALK 368. Additionally, a tenant is permitted to remove domestic or ornamental fixtures.

Fixtures however, must be removed without causing substantial damage SPYER V. PHILLPSON (1931) 2 Ch 183 (wood trade fixtures must be removed before the expiry of the lease). Domestic and ornamental fixtures can be removed before or in a reasonable time after expiry of the lease.

:
I hope this helps clarify the concept of fixtures for you. If you have any further questions or need additional assistance, feel free to ask. I WIll be happy to help. Remember, I'm here to answer all your questions regarding LAW.

Kindly hit the like button...

The answer to this Law of Tort problem question can be found in the comments section of this post.

:
Abu Bakarr Kamara, a snake enthusiast, possesses a collection of five (5) snakes, one of which is a 36ft-long cobra. He relocated from his village to reside with his older brother, Mr. Kamara Senior, at No. 5A Sabi Lane in Juba.

Sento Sesay, a pregnant woman, and her family lived at No. 5B Sabi Lane in Juba.

On the night of November 10th, 2018, there was severe weather, including thunderstorms. A lightning strike occurred at No. 5A Sabi Lane, damaging a portion of the house and the box in which Abu Bakarr had kept his snakes.

The cobra managed to escape and slithered its way to No. 5B Sabi Lane, finding refuge underneath Sento Sesay's bed. She awakened in the middle of the night to attend to her needs, only to be confronted by the formidable cobra, which spat venomously towards her nine (9) months of pregnancy. Sento Sesay was overcome with shock and collapsed.

The following morning, her husband comes to you for legal advice as he intends to take legal action. Advise him.

:
The answer to this Law of Tort problem question can be found in the comments section of this post.

Don't forget to Like the Page and Share the post.

ANSWER 👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽

In ordinary circumstances, an advertisement is not considered an offer. In the case of Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421, the defendant placed an advertisement in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble finches for sale. Section 6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer such birds for sale. He was charged and convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction. The court held that the advertisement was an invitation to treat and not an offer.

Applying the above court decision to the facts of the scenario, it will show that Susan’s advertisement is not an offer, but an open offer to make an offer (invitation to treat) to her for her acceptance. Thus, as a general rule, Susan would not be bound to sell the car to anyone who may offer to buy it without her unambiguous acceptance.

However, notwithstanding the fact that Susan's advertisement is an invitation to treat, it is important to note that once a valid acceptance takes place by her, a binding contract is formed. To that end, it is therefore essential to know what constitutes a valid acceptance in order to establish if Susan is bound to sell the car to either Ebu, Richard or Robert. Hence, it becomes necessary to consider each of the character’s actions in turn.

EBUN: The issues in respect of Ebun’s conduct are thus:

Firstly, whether her post to Susan requesting for detailed descriptions of the vehicle and further offered to purchase same at $6,000 with the contingency that if is an American model and the millage is below 80,000 miles constitutes a valid offer to Susan's advertisement; and

Secondly, whether her last reply to Susan that she is willing, able and ready give her $6,000 for the car also constitutes a valid offer.

With regards her first statement, there was no offer made, but rather she had requested for further information with regards the description, model of the vehicle and the millage same has covered. And it has been held that a mere inquiry or request for information doesn't amount to an offer (Harvey v Facey (1893) AC 552 Privy Council).

In terms of the second statement, the issue in this context is whether Ebun’s last reply by post is maintaining the initial terms of her offer or is attempting to impose a new term. It appears that the later is the case because Ebun had previously offered $5,000 for the purchase of the car. Thus, Ebun’s last reply by post to pay $6,000 will not be considered a valid offer, but rather a counter offer to her previous offer ($ 5,000). The effect of a counter offer is to "kill off" the original offer. This rule can be seen in operation in the case of Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334.

Accordingly, Susan's reply to Ebun that she will get back to her doesn't amount to a valid acceptance of Ebun's offer of $ 6,000 to buy the car. To conclude a contract, the offeree's response must be an absolute and definite acceptance of the terms proposed in the offer and most not leave no room for doubt (The Law of Contracts in Ghana page 37).

Worthy to note also is the fact that Susan’s later text to Ebun that the car is no longer for sale amounts to a valid termination of Ebun's $6,000 offer to buy the car. And it has been held that the communication to the offeror of an outright rejection or counter offer terminates the power of acceptance and the offeree cannot thereafter accept the offer (Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334).

Therefore, as per the prevailing circumstances, Susan has no contractual obligation to sell the car to Ebun because there was no “consensus ad idem” between them.

RICHARD: Loading...

©️ Quadic Bangura Esq.
+23276806030 (WhatsApp)

Argument within a legal system is different from argument outside, because the legal system is sympathetic to certain arguments that would not meet as great a welcome outside the legal system, and because it discounts other arguments that would be more appealing outside the legal system.

Apparently, the legal system itself sets the rules about what kinds of arguments will be successful within that system. Hence, argument within a legal system is procedural.

Thus, let the due process of the law in our legal system be observed.