3) In conversion, damages are usually assessed on the value of the goods at the date of conversion whereas in detinue, they are assessed on the value of the goods at the date of trial. In the case of Kangama v. Alexandria, (1950-57); it was held by Justice Luke that in an action in detinue, the damages are awarded to the plaintiff in the event of the defendant's failure to return the goods in the market value of the goods assessed at the date of judgment and not at the time of the defendant's refusal to return them. 4) The defendant will not be liable for conversion by keeping where prior to the demand for their return by the plaintiff, the goods have been lost or destroyed whether by accident or by negligence of the defendant but the defendant will be liable in detinue in such circumstances unless he proves the goods were not lost or destroyed through his negligence. In the case of Coldman v. Hill, (1919); it was held that the defendant was liable in detinue where he wrongfully and intentionally parted with possession of the plaintiff's chattel before the demand and refusal. It can, therefore, be said that in this respect, liability in detinue is stricter than in conversion summarize this text in few sentences