Commander LDF and Others v Magaga (C of A (CIV) 33 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 4 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COUR T OF AP PE AL OF LE S OTH O C of A (CIV) No.3 3 / 2 0 1 1 In t h e m a t ter b etween : COMMANDE R LDF MINIS TR Y OF DE F E NCE F OR CE THE ATTOR NE Y GE NE R AL 1 S T AP PE LLANT 2 ND AP PE LLANT 3 R D AP PE LLANT AND MOTLATSI MAGAGA R E S P ONDE NT COR AM: S MALBE RGE R J A S COTT J A HOWIE J A 1 6 APRIL 2 0 1 2 HE ARD : DE LIVE RE D: 2 7 APRIL 2 0 1 2 S UMMAR Y Cla im for d a m a ges t o m ot or veh icle – p r oof r equ ir ed – d a m a ges n ot es t a b lis h ed – d a m a ges a wa r d ed for em ot ion a l s h ock – ca s e for s u ch d a m a ges n ot m a d e ou t – or d er of High Cou r t a lt er ed t o on e of a b s olu t ion fr om t h e in s t a n ce. J UDGME NT S MALBE RGE R, J A [1 ] Th e r es p on d en t (a s p la in tiff) in s titu ted a ction in t h e High Cou r t a ga in s t t h e a p p ella n ts (a s d efen d a n ts ) for d a m a ges in t h e s u m of M2 5 0 2 2 5 .3 3 p lu s in t er es t a n d cos ts . His a ction a r os e ou t of a n in cid en t t h a t occu r r ed on t h e n igh t of 2 3 J u n e 2 0 0 7 wh en t h e Cor olla s ed a n veh icle (“t h e Cor olla ”), b elon gin g t o, a n d b ein g d r iven b y, h im wa s s h ot a t b y m em b er s of t h e Les ot h o Defen ce For ce a n d s ever ely d a m a ged b y gu n s h ot fir e. For con ven ien ce I s h a ll r efer t o t h e p a r ties a s in t h e cou r t a qu o. [2 ] Th e tr ia l p r oceed ed b efor e Peete J . Alt h ou gh in itia lly d en ied , t h e d efen d a n ts con ced ed lia b ility in t h e cou r s e of t h e tr ia l lea vin g on ly t h e qu a n tu m of t h e p la in tiff’s d a m a ges in is s u e. At t h e con clu s ion of t h e tr ia l t h e lea r n ed tr ia l ju d ge a wa r d ed t h e p la in tiff M9 8 0 0 0 .0 0 in r es p ect of t h e d a m a ge to t h e Cor olla , a s well a s a n a m ou n t of M2 5 0 0 0 .0 0 for “m en ta l s h ock a n d s u ffer in g”, toget h er wit h in t er es t a t 1 8 .5 % fr om d a te of ju d gm en t, a n d cos ts of s u it . Th e d efen d a n ts d u ly n ot ed a n a p p ea l a ga in s t t h e a m ou n t of d a m a ges a wa r d ed t o t h e p la in tiff; t h e p la in tiff in tu r n cr os s - a p p ea led a ga in s t in ter es t on ly b ein g a wa r d ed fr om t h e d a te of ju d gm en t. [3 ] Th e la w is clea r with r ega r d to h ow d a m a ges t o a veh icle a r e to b e a s s es s ed in a m a t ter s u ch a s t h e p r es en t . Th e n or m a l a n d a p p r op r ia te m et h od of d oin g s o wou ld b e t o ca lcu la te t h e d iffer en ce b et ween t h e m a r k et va lu e of t h e veh icle con cer n ed b efor e it wa s d a m a ged , a n d t h e m a r k et va lu e t h er ea ft er . Fa ilin g a gr eem en t , t h e b efor e a n d a fter va lu e of t h e veh icle wou ld h a ve t o b e p r op er ly es ta b lis h ed b y a d m is s ib le evid en ce. An ot h er a p p r op r ia te m et h od , a n d on e fr equ en tly a p p lied , is t o ta k e a s t h e m ea s u r e of d a m a ges t h e r ea s on a b le cos t of r es t or in g t h e veh icle t o its or igin a l (p r e-d a m a ged ) con d ition . However , t h e cos t of r ep a ir s a s a m et h od t o es ta b lis h d a m a ges wou ld n ot b e a p p r op r ia te if s u ch cos t wou ld clea r ly b e in exces s of t h e d im in u tion in va lu e of t h e veh icle. By wa y of illu s tr a tion , if a veh icle wit h a va lu e of M5 0 0 0 0 .0 0 is d a m a ged , a n d th e r ea s on a b le cos t of r ep a ir s wou ld a m ou n t to M1 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 , t h e la r ger a m ou n t ca n clea r ly n ot b e r ecover ed a s d a m a ges . (See E RAS MUS v DAVIS 1 9 6 9 (2 ) S A (AD) 1 a t , in ter a lia , 9 A-D; 1 7 F-H; 1 8 C- E , a ca s e con s is ten tly followed in S ou t h Afr ica , a n d s ee a ls o MARGARE T KHAPHWIYO v MAPITSO KHOJ ANE 1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 6 LLR-LB 2 9 9 a t 3 0 2 .) [4 ] As p r oof of t h e p la in tiff’s d a m a ges in r es p ect of t h e Cor olla t h e p la in tiff’s cou n s el h a n d ed in qu ot a tion s fr om t h r ee d iffer en t p a n el b ea ter s / r ep a ir er s . Th e qu ot a tion s wer e for M1 0 0 2 5 5 , M9 8 7 2 4 a n d M9 5 6 2 8 r es p ectively. Th a t for M1 0 0 2 5 5 fr om Les ot h o Nis s a n wa s s u p p or t ed b y a wit n es s s t a tem en t fr om Mr . An a n d J u ga r , t h e s er vice m a n a ger of Les ot h o Nis s a n , wh os e s ta tem en t wa s a d m it ted b y con s en t . Alt h ou gh t h e wit n es s d id n ot s p ecifica lly s ta te t h a t t h e qu ot a tion r ep r es en ted t h e r ea s on a b le cos t of r ep a ir s to t h e Cor olla , on e ca n in fer in fa vou r of t h e p la in t iff t h a t to h a ve b een t h e ca s e. Th e ot h er qu ota tion s wer e n ot con fir m ed b y evid en ce. Th e tr ia l ju d ge r es or t ed t o t h e s im p le exp ed ien t of ta k in g t h e a ver a ge of t h e t h r ee qu ot a tion s (wh ich in a n y even t wa s im p er m is s ib le) a n d a wa r d ed t h e p la in tiff a n a m ou n t of M9 8 0 0 0 in r es p ect of d a m a ge t o t h e Cor olla . In t h a t h e er r ed . [5 ] Th e p la in tiff t es tified t h a t h e h a d b ou gh t t h e Cor olla (a 2 0 0 4 m od el) for M9 0 0 0 0 a t t h e b egin n in g of 2 0 0 7 . Th e veh icle wa s d a m a ged s om e s ix m on t h s la ter wh en (s u b ject t o evid en ce in d ica tin g th e con tr a r y) its va lu e wou ld p r ob a b ly h a ve b een les s t h a n a t t h e tim e of p u r ch a s e. No evid en ce wa s led a s to its m a r k et va lu e im m ed ia tely b efor e t h e in cid en t, or of its r es id u a l va lu e a fter t h e in cid en t . Th e fa ct t h a t it wa s ca p a b le of r ep a ir wou ld s u gges t t h a t it m u s t h a ve h a d a r ea s on a b le r es id u a l va lu e. Qu it e clea r ly t h e a m ou n t a wa r d ed t o t h e p la in tiff s u b s ta n tia lly exceed ed t h e d im in u tion in va lu e of t h e Cor olla . In t h e cir cu m s t a n ces h e wa s n ot en t itled to d a m a ges in t h e a m ou n t a wa r d ed to h im . Nor is it p os s ib le t o d eter m in e on t h e evid en ce wh a t d a m a ges h e a ct u a lly s u ffer ed . It follows t h a t t h e p la in tiff fa iled to p r ove h is los s con s equ en t u p on t h e d a m a ge to t h e Cor olla . Th is is a n u n for t u n a te r es u lt in a m a t ter t h a t s h ou ld h a ve b een ca p a b le of ea s y p r oof in t h e cou r t a qu o. It is in exp lica b le t h a t t h e n eces s a r y evid en ce wa s n ot led , or en cou r a ged b y t h e ju d ge a qu o in t h e in t er es t s of d oin g ju s tice b etween t h e p a r t ies . [6 ] Un for tu n a t ely for t h e p la in tiff h e ca n a ls o n ot s u cceed in h is cla im for d a m a ges for “m en ta l s h ock a n d s u ffer in g”, or “em otion a l s h ock ” or “n er vou s s h ock ”, a s it is m or e com m on ly r efer r ed t o. On e of t h e r equ ir em en t s for s u ch a cla im to s u cceed is t h a t t h e cla im a n t m u s t b e s h own t o h a ve s u ffer ed s om e id en tifia b le p s ych ia tr ic in ju r y or illn es s a s a con s equ en ce of t h e even t givin g r is e to h is cla im (s ee OFFICE R COMMANDING ROMA POLICE AND OTHE RS v J OSIASE ROBOTSE KHOE TE AND ANOTHE R C of A (CIV) 7 0 / 2 0 1 1 , ju d gm en t d eliver ed on 2 7 Ap r il 2 0 1 2 , a t p a r a [1 3 ], a n d a u t h or ities t h er e cited ). Da m a ges a r e n ot r ecover a b le for in s ign ifica n t n er vou s s h ock of s h or t d u r a tion wh ich h a s n o s u b s ta n tia l effect on t h e h ea lt h of t h e p er s on con cer n ed . Bein g s h ot a t wou ld u n d ou b ted ly h a ve b een a n u n p lea s a n t a n d d is tr es s in g exp er ien ce for t h e p la in tiff, b u t it wou ld h a ve b een of r ela tively s h or t d u r a tion , a n d t h er e is n o evid en ce t h a t h e s u ffer ed a n y con s equ en tia l p s ych ia tr ic in ju r y or illn es s . By h is own a d m is s ion h e d id n ot even feel t h e n eed to con s u lt a d oct or . He t h er efor e fa iled t o m a k e ou t a ca s e for d a m a ges for n er vou s s h ock . [7 ] In t h e cir cu m s ta n ces t h e a p p r op r ia te or d er in t h e cou r t b elow s h ou ld h a ve b een on e of a b s olu t ion fr om t h e in s t a n ce. Th e a p p ea l t h er efor e s u cceed s . It is t o b e h op ed t h a t t h e p a r ties will a r r ive a t a s et tlem en t of t h is m a t ter , m or e p a r ticu la r ly on e t h a t will n ot b u r d en a n in n ocen t a n d d es er vin g p la in tiff u n d u ly wit h cos t s . [8 ] Th e con clu s ion t o wh ich I h a ve com e r en d er s it u n n eces s a r y t o con s id er t h e cr os s -a p p ea l. In a n y even t t h er e is n o m er it in t h e cr os s -a p p ea l. Th e tr ia l ju d ge wa s cor r ect in on ly a wa r d in g d a m a ges fr om t h e d a te of ju d gm en t. [9 ] Th e followin g or d er is m a d e: 1 . 2 . Th e a p p ea l is a llowed wit h cos ts . Th e ju d gm en t of t h e cou r t a qu o is s et a s id e a n d t h e followin g or d er is s u b s tit u ted in its s tea d : “ Th e d e fe n d a n t s a r e a bs o lve d in s t a n c e wit h c o s t s ” . fr o m t h e 3 . Th e cr os s -a p p ea l is d is m is s ed wit h cos t s . _________________________ J . W. S MALBE R GE R J US TICE OF APPE AL I a gr ee: I a gr ee: ________________________ D. G. S COTT J US TICE OFAPPE AL _______________________ C. T. H OWIE J US TICE OF APPE AL For Ap p ella n ts For Res p on d en ts : : Ad v R. Mots ieloa Mr . K. D. Ma b u lu