Taimu v AG (Civil Cause 886 of 1994) [1996] MWHCCiv 11 (17 December 1996)

IN 'lHE HIGH CDURI' OF HALAWI PRDCIPAL REGISIRY CIVIL CAUSE Nill1BER 886 OF 1994 · BEPNEEN: E. T. C. TAil1U ......................... . ......... PLAINI'IFF arrl IBE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANT W. W. OOIO, DEPUIY REDISIRAR T. Nyirerrla, Counsel for the Plaintiff Defendant absent 0010. DmJIY RffiIBIRAR . RlJL)}G This is an application by the plaintiff for assessment of damages for conversion. By a writ of summ.ons and a st.a tement of claim issuai on 28 April, 1994, the plaintiff claima:1 against the deferrlant dama.ges for false imprisonment, dama.ges for conversion and costs of the action. An interlocutory consent juigment was entere:l on 18 October, IB.mges for false to be assessa:l. 1994. imprisonment were assessEd. at K20D, ODO. DO on 14th December, 1994. I now have to assess dan:ages for conversion. I:amages had Let me digress here and say that I fail to see why the plaintiff decidai to assess dan:ages for false imprisonment and for conversion separately when the interlocutory jl.rlgrnent embrace:i both actions . Time and treasury would have been savEd. if assessment of dama.ges for both actions was done once an::l for all. You cannot litigate by instalments. Be tr.at as it nay, the evidence on assessment of darrages for . . . l.ta . ~R \ - I conversion was given by the plaintiff himself only. It was that he is in the employ of Controller of Stores, a Government Department arrl be is basa:l in Blantyre. In 1988, he was still in the employ of Controller of Stores but then, he was basa:l at State House in Zomba.. Whilst be was there, he was accusal of theft by a person employed in the public service. In consequence> he was arrest Erl on 22rrl October, 1988, arrl reaan:lB:1 in custcdy. Next day, arrl while he was still in custcdy, the Police from Zomba Police Station went to his house arrl seiza:l all his household properties. They did not tell him the rrason why they did so. They took the property to Zomba Police Station. After a couple of days he was broU3"ht to Zomb3 !13.gistrate Court for trial . After the conclusion of the trial, he was fourrl not guilty arrl he was accordi.n:Jly acquittal. The Police were orderB:1 by the court to return the household properties they bad seizs:j from him. They did not an:l they lave not done so up to now. The properties the Police seizErl arrl which they lave not hitherto returne::1 are:- 1 . 3 piece loUTIJe suite 2. 1 Din.iIB set 1. 1 Display Cabinet 4. Fridge 5. 3 plate cooker 1 Wardrobe 6. 7 . 1 Cupbc:ard 8. Coffee tables 9. s boos 10. 5 mttresses (1 double, 1 three qu3.rter size arrl 3 si.n:Jles 4 11 size) 5 (three quarter) pairs sheets 11 . 25 blankets 12. 13. mosquito nets 14. 1 dressi.n:J table 15. 2 siJBer sew:iIB DBchines 16. 1 electric hEBter 17. 1 fan 1 electric iron 18. 2 stereo systems 19. 20 . kitchen utensils 21. 22. 30 metres curtain DB terial 1 role chicken wire The plaintiff further told the court that when he was relEE.se:1 in 1992, he denan:iai the return of these properties to him f ram 'The total value Zrnnb3. Police but they did not give them back. of the seizai items at the time of seizure was K25, 750. 00 . 'When he checkai their values again in 1994, he fourrl that their total value was then K120,000. 00. Tiie plaintiff I s evidence is un:lisputai arrl unchallffi'B"Erl . accordin3'ly IIE.ke f:i.rrlin3s of fact relative to it. I HaV'in3' set the cast, I tum to the law. I can do no better th3n refer to General anl Fimnce Facilities T,imitai vs . Coolcs Qrrs (Rgntord) Lim:i.tal [ 1963] 2 All E. R. 314 . Dip lock L . J . said at page 317: "There are important distinctions between a cause of action in conversion arrl a cause of action in detinue . The farmer is a sin:fle wron:Jful act an:i the cause of action accrues at the date of conversion : the latter is a continuin:J cause of action which accrues at the date of the wron:Jful refusal to deliver up in the action for detinue . 11 the goods or jwgment Tiius, in conversion the cause of action accrues at the date of conversion arrl in the present case the date of can.version is 23 October, 1988. As to mEBsure of danages I again def er to Dip lock L. J . in General ani F':i.m1x:e :Facilities Lllnital v. Cooks Cars case at page 318. He said that the action in conversion is a purely persoral action and results in a The ju:lgment is for a siJBle sum of which the mm.sure is generally the value of the chat tel at the date of conversion tcgether with any consequential damge f lowinJ from the conversion and not too remote to be recoverable in law. ju:igment for pecuniary damges cmly. 'What the lEEma:1 Ju:ige said> in my view, accords with the principle that damges in tort are awardoo by way of monetary compensation for a loss or losses 'Which the plaintiff las actrally sustainoo arrl the mm.sure of damge awardErl on this basis nay vary according to the individral circumstances of EE.ch case. IrrleErl the lrn.mErl authors, tlcGregor cm :canages > 15th Edition> :i:ara 1308 submit that the sourrlest apprcach is to start off with the value at the time of conversion as the pri. IIB. facie mffisure: this is in accordance with the general principle that damages must be assessoo as at the date of the wrong. The effect upon this mm.sure of danages, the lffirna:l authors argue, of incrrn.ses or decrffises in the value between wroIB arrl ju:lgment Incra=1ses must be di vidErl into those must then be ccmsiderErl. that ha.ve rappenoo without intervention by the deferrlant i.e. rises in the narket value arrl those are due to acts done or expenses incurrErl by the defend.ant in relation to the gocxis . In the case of S!cbs vs Hilclos [1948]2 K. B. 23 (CA) there rad been a rise in the value of the gocxis converta:l an:l the plaintiff llie court said that claim. Erl as danages their incrrn.sa:1 value. the question was wrat was the plaintiff's loss, what da:IJEge lad he sufferErl, by the wrongful act of the deferrlants. Turning to the present case the plaintiff is therefore entitla:I. pri. Da facie to the value of the goals at the time of conversion which is 1988. It is not throu::;h the fault of the plaintiff that the value of the goods has risen astronomically. The police kept him in prison until 1994 arrl even after they relEE.sEd him, they did not arrl have not hitherto handed over the properties to the plaintiff. He is, therefore, entitlErl to recover the value of the gocrls as at the date of juigm.ent because tba.t represents the rool loss he bas suffered. It is impossible to say that he is not enti tlai to recover the value of the gocrls as at the time of ju:lgment. 'This also is in accordance with the principle of restitutio in intcgrum.. I accordin3'ly award the plaintiff K120,000. OD as the value of the converted gocrls at the time of juigment. I also award him Ki0,000 as general damages for the detention of those gocrls. tlADE IN CHAt1BERS THIS 17t h day of December, 1996.