Namwela v AG (Civil Cause 2044 of 1994) [1996] MWHCCiv 8 (13 March 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 2044 OF 1994 BETWEEN D. NAMWELA (MALE) AND ........................... .. ' , '.'' ·';• 1 PLAINTIFF :.. 1 ,. ATTORNEY GENEHAL ............................. .. ~) - ' DEFENDANT CORAM : Defendant absent f' ·, ;I ORDER By a writ of summons and a statement of claim issued on 27th the plaintiff claimed a declaration that his October , 1994, continued interdiction was wrongful. He further claimed an order that he be reinstained and that his salary be paid to him On 5th May, 199 5, he obtained in and costs of defau lt of defence in the following terms:- the action. 1. That the defendants continued interdiction of is wrongful 2. That the defendant do reinstate the plaintiff in the Civil Service 3 . That the defendant do pay the plaintiff his salary ~ from July 1993 to such a date that the plaintiff will the Civil Serv~=e and interest be thereon at the rate deemed to be fit by the court. reinstated into 4. That the defendant do pay the costs of this action. --- - ,,. I • : ,, . ' .. -2- . ·/i,; This The matter comes before me 1.n order to make-\; an assessment I m~i~ say at once of th e plaintiff's salary from July, 1993. that the word ing of the sentence in paragraph 3 of} the judgement is not a happy one. Damages for one cause of _:, action must be recovered once and forever. They must therefore pe awarded as a lump sum. Further damages must be assessed at the date of the from trial . s peculating as to the financial position of the ' plaintiff in respect of The court must make an' assessment of d amages in the light . of facts known as at the da,te, Job ling v In Wrigh(·,' v British Rly Associated Daines Ltd Board, Lord Dip.lock said it was the duty of ju,c;l,g_es to assess d amages at the date of the trial. As such para:graph 3 of the have stated that the defendap,f" do pay the judgement should I shall assess plaintiff salary up to the date of-- the .trial. '· ff:t! d amages up to the date of the trial. ( 1982) AC 794. it prevents so because the future. the court is ' ,,_J~i3i,rf,The hearing of assessment of damages pr;c:;'eeded in the , ... .;,,fl~b-s'~J~.ef of He had been duly served with the. ·:..:1::~;not-f~-e '. of the hearing of the assessment but he dicf not appear at the defendant. th~ji fiear ing . . ,,..:.· The plaintiff gave evidence which is uncontroverted. It was that he was in the employ of the Department o( Landscape and was working at Sanjika Palace in the City of Blant~re. He used to work as a gaiden boy. He started work in 1990 ; \• In July 1993 he was accused of having bought a stolen mattress 1 ' He was taken to Magistrate court where he got acquitted after f a trial. When he went back to his place of work, he was g i v~n a letter of interdiction. ·:·' His salary was K226.36 per month. He did not recieve any letter of the salary after his interdiction. interdiction, exhibit Pl, states that during "the period of interdiction, he was not going to receive any salary or duty allowance. Inf act From July 1993 to December 1993 at K226.36 ~er month comes to Kl,358.15. From January to December 1994, : at K226.36 per mo nth it comes to Kl,358.15. From January to December 1994, at From January 1995 to K226. 36 per month it comes to K2, 716. 32. De cembe r 1996 at K226.36, it comes to K2,716.32.i,i From January, 1996 to date of trial which is February 1996 tlat K226.36 per mo nth it comes to K452. 72. The total salary comes ,to K7, 243. 51. I awa rd this sum of money to the plaintiff subject to the tax to wh ich i t is liable . I award the plaintiff costs of the action. Made in Chambers this 13th March, 1996. l:. /. .,