Why English Tort Law and Imported Civil Law Models Have No Place in Modern Africa: Time to Break Free

It is perhaps unsurprising that recent years have witnessed a forceful movement towards what is often termed ‘decolonisation’ – a conscious rejection of structures, narratives, and institutions rooted in colonial dominance. Yet, while symbolic and cultural remnants of colonialism have been actively challenged, its most enduring legacy – the law – remains comparatively insulated from meaningful reform. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of tort law.

This article offers a critical examination of the continued and largely unchallenged reliance on orthodox English tort doctrines within African jurisdictions, with particular focus on Nigeria. Despite the formal attainment of political independence, the substantive content of tort law in these systems remains strikingly derivative, reflecting principles developed within a fundamentally different historical, social, and economic context. The persistence of these doctrines is not merely a matter of legal continuity, but a deeper structural entrenchment that limits the capacity of tort law to respond effectively to local realities.

The article argues that English tort law, with its emphasis on individual fault, corrective justice, and rigid doctrinal categories, is ill-suited to address the complex, often communal harms that characterise contemporary African societies. Its continued application risks producing outcomes that are not only doctrinally strained but normatively disconnected from the societies it purports to regulate.

Adopting a doctrinal and critical approach, this article challenges the assumed neutrality and universality of English tort principles and exposes their limitations when transposed without adaptation. It calls for a deliberate rethinking of tort law through a locally grounded lens—one that moves beyond inherited frameworks and engages meaningfully with indigenous concepts of responsibility, harm, and redress. In doing so, it advances the case for a more responsive and contextually legitimate tort regime.