Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors

Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings that the respondents did not assist, instigate, or intend the SLP's unlawful acts were upheld. The provision of money, vehicles, and accommodation did not amount to assistance or intention to commit torts. The case was one of pure omissions, with no duty of care owed by the respondents for the acts of the SLP. Even if breaches were found, they were not causative of the loss. The law does not impose liability for the acts of third parties in these circumstances.

Parties
Appellants: Kadie Kalma & Others; Respondent: African Minerals Ltd; Respondent: African Minerals (SL) Ltd; Respondent: Tonkolili Iron Ore (SL) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Accessory Liability, Duty of Care, Common Design, Causation, Breach of Duty
Tort Law Negligence Common Law Vicarious Liability Accessory Liability Duty of Care Common Design Causation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kadie Kalma & Others

Appellants

African Minerals Ltd

Respondent

African Minerals (SL) Ltd

Respondent

Tonkolili Iron Ore (SL) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were liable for the tortious acts of the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) under common design or direct duty of care
  2. 2 Whether the provision of money, vehicles, and accommodation to the SLP constituted assistance or intention to commit torts
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care was owed by the respondents to the appellants for acts of third parties (SLP)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings that the respondents did not assist, instigate, or intend the SLP's unlawful acts were upheld. The provision of money, vehicles, and accommodation did not amount to assistance or intention to commit torts. The case was one of pure omissions, with no duty of care owed by the respondents for the acts of the SLP. Even if breaches were found, they were not causative of the loss. The law does not impose liability for the acts of third parties in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed