Chekucheku v Brahman & Anor. (Civil Cause 767 of 1994) [1994] MWHCCiv 13 (8 November 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NUMBER 767 OF 1994 BETWEEN: GRACE CHEKUCHEKU PLAINTIFF and RASHID BRAMAN 1ST DEFENDANT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 2ND DEFENDANT Coram: TWEA, E. B., REGISTRAR 11azoe, Counsel for the Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant absent ORDER This action was behalf and that husband. brought by the plaintiff on of other dependants of her her own deceased It was the evidence of the plaintiff that her deceased husband, Late Estone Chekucheku was a businessman. In the time of his dea.th he engaged in the business of She told this Court that he selling produce to ADMARC. would make about K3,000 a month from the business. To this end she tendered payment vouchers from ADMARC, PEx1, on which was the purchase price of maize supplied by the deceased on 11th June 1993. recorded By and large deceased, was the same as that of PWl. the evidence of PW2, the father of the It is significant however, that both witnesses were not able to tell the age of the deceased. The evidence is also silent as to the nature of the earnings of the deceased. The evidence of PWl, that he would get K3,000 per month cannot be supported by PEx 1, which only shows gross takes - there is no element of expenses explained. It is apparent from the evidence that the deceased would buy and resell the produce. He was not on the evidence a farmer, i.e. the primary producer of the produce that he sold. It is also apparent that the deceased would hire transport to ferry the produce to the market. All these have an element of expenses. Further to this, I 2/ . . . . . ., . I• .) , I ~• :, I . ~ '· . ' - 2 - have to be~r in mind that produce buying and selling is the plaintiff seasonal~ significan6ly omitte~ both in his submissions. for in evidence and a matter which counsel I . . \ ' am to consider n~w ~ called upon I the extent of compensati~n that the plaintiff and the defendants would be e11titied : .. to · for the ,loss of the deceased support. I have . conJideted the submissions of counsel for which I I note that he based his multiplier on the am giaieiui j age ' ttuot~d :•.: in the death certificate. I accept this as an o _~ficia.3=: · ,document· and would accept the age assessed. . . . . ~ ) 1,;·-l j 1 · : ~ , .. f-<({' buying in . a particular are a, as I have · to I consider that the active produce buying and selling pE:(rio d ' is about three ( 3) months in a year if the re is 1 imi ted vari~tion• i~ Jcroping seasons throughout the country. In this ' casJ the evidenc~ · shows that the deceased operated within ' t~e; luchenza atea. I also take into account that the ,earnin _g's .would dw.indle to zero during other periods of the yJar . . Even if I grant that defendant would make gross prdfi't · of K3, 000 per month, this would work out at K750 per !, mohth in a year. Using a multiplier of 20, I would ge rl ' K1BO,ooo as the deceased gross profit, this is without giving any allowance for drought situations which are a nafural hazard in any produce dealing. 1 ;, -;: Be th i's ~a~ :; it may, · at such gross profit per year one should p $ Y ' tax about 40 - 45% of that gross profit which is KB1 ,oioo · or K72 ,oo'o and then take into account the earners ~~ri~use of the money, which as in this case has been !:!aitl; '-. he was building a house which I would put at about on~-third of all his net profit, which would be his disposab;le '' ihcome, this would put his net earnings after tax ·. at ~ K63,000 or . KlOB,000 tax respect{v~ly, · and after his personal use money at one thitd of his disposable income he would have K72,000 or I would thus be K42 ,000 to '·· spend on his dependants. obliged 1to ' look at his money earnings and what he would spend on' his dependants at K72,000 being a more realistic figure io~J a businessman of such a calibre. and 45% 40% at t I thus cir~nt the plaintiff and other dependants K72,000 for loss of dependancy with costs. Pronounded -in Chambers this 8th day of November 1994, at Blantyre. i Twea REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT • I I I , •