76 Defendant in an action of False Imprisonment , did not actually imprison the Plaintiff himself, but simply reported the matter to the police who then imprisoned the Plaintiff. The question of directness here is rather vexed. The courts have attempted in some instances to solve the vexing problem by considering "who set the law in motion" . In other instances the courts considered whether the police officer made his own enquiries or relied solely on the informer's report. In CHATANDA V. ABDUL KISOMA (1973) LRT n. 11 directness was established in that case by considering whether the Defendant reported the matter without reasonable and probable cause and with malice. Read: CHATANDA V. ABDUL KISOMA (1973) LRT n. 11 . Read also the case of SHEARER V. SHIELDS (1914) AC 808 , where it was argued that False imprisonment being a trespass, proof of malice is irrelevant.
77 DEFENCES TO TRESPASS TO LAND The following defences are available in an action for trespass: (a) Justification If the entry onto another person's land was granted by a licence or agreement or custom, this is complete defence. It is also in some circumstances justification if the trespass was to abate a nuisance, for example, entry to stop the spread of fire. If however a licensee remains on the land after his licence is
