Duly Motors Limited v D. L. Fisheries (APPEAL NO. 41/1989) [1990] ZMSC 18 (7 January 1990)

I : .. I I . ■ • ' • . I !· . .. -.. ) "' • I .. • I • • • I '. ,. C . ' i, • " : } ~ ·"' tr:.., th IM THE SUPBEME OOUR! or ZAMBIA ' J t." .... !91. DEN AT I LtJSAJC4 ,- , .. , ., .. .. . ' (CiTil Jllrieclietioa) . . ., ·-· • ,J .-.. - ; •' ~ ' .. ... .. I · .. ... ' ' I>. L. J'lSHSRIES ,:, '~ :~~< ,· . • Responde11t t ,. ' : ,.. OORAMs Ngulube, D. O. J., Sakala ··and·La11renoa ;JJ~s~·' ~. ' I 18tb JUUIU7,: aa4 ?th:; 1e1'1'U.17; • 1m '1 :: • .;; ;;,.: ·-;; ._:. i;, i~ ' :, J'oi, the Appel.llllltel E~ a;'Mwnaa ·E,iq~ ~ ·o; :m .tt"t(CBAM8ERS For the Btspondenta1 K M M 8imbao Eaq~, ~t MULUNGUSHI° OIIAMBERS·>:r;:.-.:~1~;· . :! ~::·, t • .· . : -:, / •. l 1•· ,•: I ' f. : ' . ' • ,,., !. • • • • J.,. ,o .. ,.l.>'J. . ~ I ... u~J.!~ l ·-"·- ... . ··. ( · ' Lawrence, J~s. ~•live~-~ the .. ju~~t ~f'.,,tbe_ ooun. t ·Y\/' • "· ·,t::-: . , · ea.. nterrecl to , ( 1) The Attornez-0.nen.l T · D. o. Kppndy (1984) zn6 1·,:-~ :.' } ~ -~ 't' f.,..:; .: .. i:.,.: .. ():~'i.1A;~ t .t · I ·. ' • I . . t · . , ~ . Ct:~ }l:., .:.:,;~ .;.i:. 0-~ t . I I , • 'if ~ ;Thia is an appeal· fro■ the_ juclgmeAt ' ot :_the Hiah :Co\lri awarding . · . . I . . . . . . duagea to .the NQODclente fol" tbf appeUuta• 'bnacll ot coa.t,.ract··r ot l'•~l"\lal7, 198.5, th• reeponden~• agN•d to pvoba•• froa/,the ,., .•, . .... "; I appellant•• 110t~r-••hiol• tor uae ln :thdr . ti.sherie■ bu neu, :a~, -, ., -; . a prio• of K12,ooo. . The re8J)all4-ntar. haviq paid.: t~ took poeeea■ion of the -nhiole throllgh oae ot. · their di acooapani•d by one . ot ~h• appellants• ageJite, tock.th' aotor-vehicl• to the . Road Traffic Cauiuiour ~or- ohuage ot;o r~p.i·: Thia. t.- -·\. \ . c!ulllp oow.d uot, .lloweyer, 'be efteoted. aa .1t ,tl'lll1niNd that· the . •nsi~e and cha ■•ia number■ di4 not correspond .wit •Pl'••ri"41 oa tu blue-book ~Moh piu,po~t•d to_ b•t ia qut■~ion. I J he particulan to the ·nhiol• I· 2/ ••••• ,: I - - - - - I I - ~• reepondtnta' director' together:, ·"With ,1,be appellante' ,. • < •;• . • . , t l \ •, . I . . agent ~ove to ·Hybrid Poultr;y Farm Lillit~d, ,on whee• behalf' the appellant•' . ' . were ulling th• .v•~icle, but the problem.could not .. ' It waa then a.~•cl that the·a:ppeµants wotlld correct ·, . i .. _, 'l• ' •. • .. ' ' . • ' ' . ' · .. .,. . '• .. . . . _: . ·. . ' - . . . ·. . .. . . . . .-_ .. " the. a.noma4. _ The vehicle was kept .l:i¥ the _.resp~ndenta whilst -•, • • • • I • • • • ":' '" *4' 1 • • • - ~ • • ' •, I • 0 ~ ' awiting t¥,e correat:lon. . . t ., After awaiting 8 •o~tb~ and the a~pe~lanta having failed to . · . .. • • h • • f . ··. ' ,. ) _pass ti tl•~ th• respozuienta returned the vehhl• and demnded • , · • ·_. • the return oft~• p~rohas• price. The appellant■ agreed to do so; but withdrew th• ch•que when th, _respon~ents demanded damages • The respondents th~n iuuad proceeiiine;a ·for th~ return of the capital BUii and the ntund of K.2,783.00 that they had expended OD innring the motor-~hiole. fta reepo11denta tu~h•~ aoµght a sum ot K3,.500 . . .' • ' • ' ' -,·. ' . • ,' • ·. . ~. ~ . . •' • ~; . ', ~ ' . . . ~, r. I '• per month •.tor use of alter11ative -traaaport ed dalllagea for oon•u••• ' ·. · ~ • . l , .. : - , "' .· t :J ~ • . The l~rned trial jv.d~ having tound for the nspondenta . . "• ordeNd the retwtd of the capital sum-with, intertat, at 1~, (twelve • f • • . ,, •• , · The iea.med trial judge then awrded·a hl"ther K.2,000 per ■onth • • ' • •, .1, , · . ,,,.. • • • .... -.. •• • .. • : ··: • 4 • ... for ·a period of 18 ~onthe "for uee ot alternatin transpe>rt.".• . J'h•. - ..: J .~ ..,.. -~ • I \ . ' ' I I} I . learned trial judge further •~d~~ a a~_.of K.5tOOO __ for i.nconveni•: _o••. Mr. Mwanea, on behalf of the_ :~ppellant•_ quite rightly- does no~ . . . . . . \. ' . dispute the order :fQr the retund' or' the ·capiW sum and. the inauran~ • 110~••• nor do~~ be dispute ,the ~~·of .~~ i_~~•i:,e~t.,; ~ the ~~i.'{- l au. Mr. MWllu., hovH'er, atta~k• .the award.a ot K.21 000 per moD.th tor 18 monthe tor use of altern:at~v~ ~o:t ,and ~j~. ~ K5,000 for ·1DOOn~•llit11Ce ~. beillg wr~ both : in i:w and ill prin~r 1~, . .of t~ : · ~ •' J .. .... _,, .:· t :•• "' I • • • ' ' ' I . Be argues that as the nepondeJ1ta bad not epecitically. pleaded ch damages the 1earned trial judge erred ·111 alla~rig these ,awarda • I ) . • ' . ,• • . . ·•·· ' ... ' . ...... ,. t ; . ' ' • j / I I \ ·: ··,· . ·.\1t:•,1, :'." \t,i'.· ,. ; -~'?-·, ~, •. 1_-. .·t• . 1 • • . • :. • • ,; • •• • . ,( ' ·'' ' • , . • .,.. ' . . . ' . . ,. .,, 1 • "' ' . t I . • : • • .. ' . . . . ,, lt. is now aettlecl la~. that da-.1•• tor incovedence •1 .. be recoYered in an action for bree.oh ot coAb~-act. ln The Attornez• :.., · • .. , General -y D,; , a, . Hpundu (1_) at' l>•ie 1.} tht11· court· eaida 11 . . . . , . • .: •. ~~"-~ •. there .ie nov a chain of· authoritf_.tci a11ppcri ihe. recovery ot damagee • • • • • -l/-· : ·- • ."; .. .:. ,- ... •,) ,• •• ~ --- 9 :, • ~, • .: . _;:·~· I .. .-; ·. ~ . ' " • ," I ' • ' • • . : "',1 • f " • , '. ~ r~• \ 1-?.· • '-''" • i. . . for ment1tl dietreali er i_noovenience1 -f'or. enmple, ~nag•• for· • . · • l ' ' • . • • . . ••• ·_. ' : ' ~ ' ' ' . : · . ~ -- _. • ... . • -_ . . · : o,#0 I , : :· ,;\':•.•l fl'llstratioil1 annoyance, cl1$Vpointmtnt could be recovered in an · . , , · l. . . ·,,_ '. .. .· " , ;:~ • ··~·• ••r ·-;·Ip;., ~1 ._-... ___ .. ·, .'· -..... · ~ •.:. . i. . • acti,,n·for ·breaoh of oontnct. 11 • ' . • ' , ' . . It ie ·quite cle&r ,troa ·the evideDoe t lµlt the _reepondente .' . --~ .., .. t ; . . ,; ,1_. -... ·. ;, , .. ,•, ,> \,, "1 1,/ -:· , ' • \ •• _.. ,' • ";; p;,-'-:.·;; ' . ) ' ~, ' l ·~·· ' I ~ • ::..:- : t. j ·. :. , :: l . : . ·. . . . ; ... • • • ·. . . did eufler ·great inconveJtlenc~ ~~ -a re~ t. ~£.tb.e ap;ellants• ~ ." failure to paae ·good ti U e a.a.cl a.a iD.• a ci..1111 for breach ot 0011:t;raot the ~!'JPODdenta are clearly •nti'tied to dusapa tor· auch inco:a.venience. . ., . ~b.o:; . • I wi I ·, ;_-: i:' .. • J • ,; :._• ' .j . . t : . • . . '. ~ ' . -'., ,, • .; _, -.;_ . ,_. • '. ', · ' u • • . . . : \ . · , ,, J . Mr. ~-.ua I . , argument that'. ·damage, tor illCOJl'ftnie:a.ce eb.o'uld be ,!!pecifice.lly pleaded ie un.termable:1u that ,.ueh damage■ are 'at· lArge I • • • • ,& , . . . ' . f I:,, f • I f , ~ t .._ I ' O , t and fall Ullder the head of se:ce:ral ·dalmges. All the pla.iDtift .. 11.eed do ia to proYe the iAcoYeaieaoe :and it ia tor the court to In the preeeat_ o.:.. the Napondente wen quantit.r the daJnaae. • ·~:_•.'!I .:; ·:• · ., r' · ~ ~- . .- 1- • • • • • • • , Uildoubtedly- greatl.¥ inoonvew.eneed.bT ~h• failure.of. the appellant~ . to '. PU• good titl.e and. bJ the appellaa.t~• failffl to procptl.7 ntund the pu.rchaee P,rice thua d.iaabliag • the nspond.e~t• · tro. purc,bm.ns, an· · alternative vehicle. appeal fail•~ _ ., . . , . / . · We nov tUl"Jl to the award of' 1<2,000 per month Mid to be ·tor1/uN of alte~tiYe j;......,porl tor a p~ri1f~£'.}8 IIIOntha: Mr. Simbao, Oil behal.1 or: tb~;:,r:-~~~~-~~•i:~oatenda that: tr ' • · · .• • ; court may awrd damages for loa■ ot \u•• in oa."e where there ba. been • total failun ot considerat1oa _ancl 'title ha■ not paeeed, but he baa ' • "I • • ( • • •• , ' • • • , . • • been uu.ble to a.e.det the oourt with iall)' awthci:rtty. tor thie I p:rop~ei ti on • . ... =·· t • ' • • • • r ..! 41~-: ·- • • f .. , ... 'rl;l• 'breach in t h• pn••~t. -~·•• _co~iatecl in the · failure 'b7 the; appellant~ to pass good title • . The reepondente were entitled' to be •• • • • / ' . . ' put:.~ near, as. pos~ible to the . P.ositio11 :they would. have been had .. . . . ·. . • • • t i J • • , • I o the · contract not been entered i~~O•· T4is the trial court ~d by .. orc,iering th·• r~fund of the eapitald Nll, ~ith interest and the ,re~d . . ... f • • ' f • • • • • • of the i _nBUpince moni•.~• ~ i_J\co~venienoe suff~red by· the tr t , \ 4 , , , , • - ' 4,: f . ·~ ... , '. -~apondente waa aclequatel7 COJl.l>~~t.ed. )?7 ·t~e award of K.5,000 "'1pra. t' ..' ~ ...., • • . ... .. ' t • ' • \ , .. ",::, : ~ . ' • • ' • · .. ~•N .hadng•be,a .:total . failure, : or -~onai~yliti. C?~ ~~•d title Zlot ••' · l ' I ... l 'I ,O• I I I •, ~v~~- ~~s~4):he·. respondent~ could :no~ r~,., been entitled to. liH the ·nhiclit.: It would have b,eJ,.~,- ilb~~4;P·(?~i\~~n,,i~_;~h• respondents w•r• aoapeneated tor 1,.ll otl,S~ . o'f ::,:,.'. mO:tc,~v•hi~l~ ,t/? ~~-<:h ~h•T . ~d ·.ilo title .nd which, :eve~ th~~gl1. 1~: their pos .. a aion tor 8 ao~tb■, they wr,• aware they caulcl n.ot ~egall.7 ~• · in th•ir businea•• . ' ' ; , , • -.. -~-l ,~ .... - t • ._.__-='• .·• •• · ~ . -.~ ~ , ·6-,.' ~-~ •"V"n"·• ,~..,,...,,,~-.-i;~~ ..... •~...,,_ .. r-•.;~•¥~-•~-~,,..,,,.,. .,,._\ For th• .foregoiag · reaaou•i-.1i·~.,.,uo,rtld.a ''part: ot~the"appeal"'and. .. ~. sat a.aide the award''ot' K2~000 J:ge; ~'onth ' n.'aatdt. to· 'be for uee ot : .,. ' 1 alt ern.ati Ye·-trau,ort. . . . " . .. . ' . . - ·. ,;;'.~c,. S(;: ,_,,,, <: o l;.;-!'! !">'-1' ; 01' 1 ni.;'?A fOlt- r: M~ -~• Se ·w. NGULUBE .. 1 - DEM. Y CHIEF JUSTICE .. ili' 1!.llh ,hey' '· . • ;I 1 ;-.. .._ ... ; I~ •.f"':. ' ~ .... i:l wi ta.' the _p.,, ~-~, 0/0 '' ! .. -t-..1 t;i._ bul.o• :· to tll'i ·1•~1 i ' . ' j• 1 \ V > .(",l.":l " I /,. "l Ii , I l l