1. Relevance of intention in the law of Torts
Malice
Motive
Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance
Intention and recklessness
Fault

2. Malice
The intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse, with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances that the law will imply an evil intent. When an act is done with bad intention then it is called malice. Malice, therefore, means evil intent. Malice for a lay man or in common acceptance means ill-will against a person but in its legal sense a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse

3. Malice
When we take the meaning of malice in its ordinary sense, such as, ill-will, spite or hatred, then we call it as malice- in-fact.
Malice-in-law means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. Thus, malice-in-law is implied in every case where a person has inflicted injury upon another in contravention of the law, without just cause or excuse.
Malice-in-fact is generally relevant in the torts of defamation on a privileged occasion, malicious prosecution, etc. For example, in an action of defamation if the defendant pleads qualified privilege, the plaintiff can defeat him by proving malice-in-fact. Malice- in-fact is thus not entirely irrelevant in the law of torts

4. Motive
Motive and malice are two distinct words used differently in the law of torts, but they are entangled with each other. Motive means ulterior intent or inner drive which-signifies the reason for a man's conduct. It is actually a chief moving force and moves the man towards a particular action. Intention signifies full advertence in the mind of the defendant to his conduct, which is in question, and to Its consequences, together with desire for those consequences.

5. Motive
It, therefore, means, as a general rule that an act which is lawful cannot become unlawful merely because it is done with any motive. That is to say, if conduct is unlawful, good motive will not exonerate the defendant, and that if conduct is lawful, a bad motive will not make him liable. To this, however, defenses like necessity and private defense are exceptions, for they defend to certain extent on a good motive on the part of the defendant.

6. Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Non-feasance
Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all.
Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do and;
non-feasance is the omission of an act which a person ought to do.
It is also used in reference to people in public office.

7. Intention and Recklessness
Intention is the state of mind. When the wrongdoer intends to commit wrong he has full knowledge of the consequences of his act, which he wants to achieve. Intention is different from motive in the sense that motive is the ulterior object for which the act is done whereas intention is the immediate object. Generally intention is not an essential condition for liability in tort. The purpose of tort is not to punish the wrongdoer but to award compensation to the injured.

8. Fault
To ascertain the liability of a person his state of mind at the time of commission of offence is relevant under various branches of law of torts like battery, false imprisonment, assault etc. But there are many cases in which the" mental element is irrelevant in determining liability of the wrong doer. In such cases he is liable even though he was not negligent or had committed with no wrong intention or was innocent or there was mistake on his part. Thus under strict liability, absolute liability and vicarious liability, a person is liable even when there was no fault on his part.

9. Questions??? Next we will study Somali Civil Code Articles 160-175
Next moot court on Torts, with parties, judges and participants