Chidule v Malawi Entrepreneur Development Institute (MSCA Civil Appeal 12 of 1993) [1994] MWSC 1 (15 April 1994)

BETWEEN: H . 0 . ::::Hil/JL E . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ............ . APPE LL AN T AN D 1 ~ • • • • • 1n .; ,,\ DENTS Co ram: J. ,\ l'__•S T~J I:: BA ~r:._',-., , CHli·Y Mkand .:: ·,;; ~ Y- c Ch 2 t s1. k2, J . A. Na k;:i.n ;-.,' , of C-:::;! ,--::, r:. 1 for th e Aµp ? ll ·1,·1t t h e Rs :~ po r , . J c · 1 t .:; , , J f\b :-d o ~ Kali mhu k ,1 J er ~ , t. · ."..: , , ~-; e ; '.; am ,::; . ~curt Cl er k f<. ecoY. ;jer l1i,J .: cin e : o r -· -- · ·-- - -··-- · -- ·· -- ---· - - - - - -- - JUDGMENT This sitting in dismissed. ; s ar, appca ' t Ii ~ 1: ~ r s t: .:.:.,ains~ rhe i n c.; ~ ~ n c e v 'i e r, d .:' C' s i on of ·- l.-- P t .·e app e llant' s l;: g~, Court c1 c':.1.on wa s ::i ; .1!-- "'' a:, '/-c:s···= ·. ::· h in Octol .-·.-:- the Lalc:.; i :~ i ·.1 ::x.,,vr1 . ! (J •; Q The app~ll ~nt-- t-> j •.)ung ma r :-i eJ '·' :,,, , . .-c r iz :•n,,,· at the rnate::- i_:1:: ::r1 tn~p ,-·} 1·.t1er De v e l c pme,~1 t: ,.·.--.i_ne<i c o children. of c alled "M EDI" a nd Fabrication ; 1,: j h 11s'. n w : : ~·;._'. n agement-. ? 8th of Febr ~ar•1 1 )91. g r a duates whc hii,~ 1)-: •:' ,' &, l:<? d Th e o pp o rtunit > h e lp them ·",r '.:· r ~h:·1 n wn bu s i n e ::: s :: · : _ T t_ i njured whi , , . ·,n~ ·!,. 1 i.., 1 g ~v ? \. I. or·: ,:i' '"''r.:·1· · • ,1: , ·; c I F :1 , , f' c o ,,;,::~,I so t h at i . . J< k to t!l e~ r · • 1 g t h i s De l -1cL1 l wo rk s l1c,i . ·' l :_,: 33 ti:, e, a:_ t; ,~ :,1scitu::-,: two ·-. ·, J<.sh o p ;,er e;. r, a ft er ;:c> :1eral fitter Grade On e i n ~et a l ·:..>mpleted th e c c11 ., rse o n f o v· MEDI to .• emair behind after £.., rad 1:• cion. a n to t h eir t : 1 e a p i, , · i ~ ... i , w ;:i s and his th...--,, c c uld r a.1 ,-;E ; : , , J t' ."'l.1 ,:::n3 u,"' s ot ic ,:c y '.,-,. , ... ~s Lo s '",-~ ·.· j~ ;· 11e a;:,pel:i 'ml r h e app ella .i t ;1 t>:- 11d l-- e: is a nviU:: !_'. .. as cimong a course idea ; r . 1 i. the ,,'-'IS :)1 . \ i "t' .. : e, · As a angl e rr,u c ~l.' tr e~, [:e n ;.: laf.:l ,: .~, ., chines and g,Vi-welding machin es. ma chines , g ui l lotine, ar :;- . ,,, ,2] 1~i 11 .cs work on which the f or staf f h o·, ·~ 1>. <, th ey also worked 01 ot i--. er ,li'. J rk f~r .'-'IELI. i n questio n, staff housef . . o f machine broi. ~c ap c:ct ar,d the sprint e r pieces injured h ::: ,...:1 J f; t ter. t h e app e · I. Ji:~ 1ac1 oeen : - · i n g mi 1]in g b r>ride r s, Th e 'ii:: :·ol Leagues were working was l·ll-..:Y:- ~·hich W< · ,-~ L< · Lng built und e r UNIJ P and the particul a r d ay ,: : 1 burglar b a rs for t h e >": 11as u 3 in ;,; an an g le grinder to smooth the edg es th e h a d made when th P ,n pe 1 ~a :1t was WO("k jri g ,,~Jp c- ·11 :·;--:1: a n d the disc of the burp i .~. , g ~-inder, .3 arm. 1 ·: 1 , -.~L pip 2 h a ~ E i: 1:- On h e / i n The r.w~n · L,f,. U,:' t r1° case was wrv ' tl1et" che app e: 1 l ant was working at MEDI as an ?r,,plGyee or whethc: :_· he was an i. r1 ,!P: ;Je; ,,Jent contractor. ~.s we have already indicated, the appellant is a trained genereJ. f}t ~e~ havlr,g obtained a Grade One qualifi ca ~ion. ~hen he ca~e to MED I he He is specia~ised in met2l f abrication. was supposed co re c ei v e training in Business Manageme ~t tel2 ting to metal work. c: o last three months it eventuc'l:)_,: lasted five m0nths. There ec-11--: be no doubt that the appellar~:. d L-::. · well during that course o t L~c·t·l .;_ se he would not have been ask e d ~o remain behind and work at MEDI. The other friends :,ir. £"ranc is Nk .'l ,,~L ra, Grey Lipato and H. Ghc',r,.l-.,i. Al ~hc ut,h originally that training wa s ,11ith hLm we1 :e ·r ::n-.a i ;1e d ,;~ ;.) The the -:'h e h e do ct Dr i...1c,s sent the apµellan ::: inj ·Jrie s wh :· c :-1 c: ;ffered c a,, o nL to Snuth Africa fo r Part of t~ie medium ne :-\ ·r:: The · appel 1 dnt ~he doctc ~ ,,ery seric,uf. 2 nd de bi 1 i tat i.~g. in South Af . :ca when att ~mp tin g tha.t th 8 in _;•Jry had devtdoped "a :na:; ;; ~v P be described as He had a ver:y b i g laceration on the left for e a:·m anc hc. J sev c::: ·1· cd tendons and nerves on the forearm. ',Jas missing an d as a cl'Cm 1s nu;v C'.,mpletely wec:d"' and cannot mo-.,r~ its result, f v~ th e r fi r.g e rs. treatment. an ."'1r e a of .operation fou r:ci the f i brosis". o peration L~s the 'J ' ry healthy si. H : . He, cnr;sec1u 2:i tly, injured arm was not in a the d e c i de d a pp e 11 ant a f t ·.::: r t he f o ·_1 r mo n L h "' ha cl The appellant fibrosis a chance to s2ttlE:: clown and sot~en up. was never sent L8ck The to South Africa ~::or injury was so s eric•u !:: U1:1 ::: 1 t was not p c s s i ble to close i i: back to anatomical .p osition . As a technician, he cannot now use his l eft arm and will have a ~e~manent jend because of the injury to the nerves. i::e,. manent disability wh i ch was assessed at S0'1o. The e ·,lidi=:nce was that the appellant's ar:-:-> h a d gone worse by the time t!:-if, h in up h 'J t he en vi s a 6 e d of; er a t i o ,f:'. e 1 a) s e d t !'"1erefore, the app ,:l; ;i ni: 'i; ,·ase came up for trial. , µ , 11 t o giv e fJe i'.'i:orrn sk.1 n on the operat i on. c ould not, s 11ff.:::red He ha s c L o s e foun c () rd e J'." a lso that :: n t o It is t :1e conte.1ti0!"' of Mr. Nakang,'.! fnr the apr r~ lJanr that . 7 ud g e ~r re d in law and f ac t wi ,e n he held .~ hat That, ~n our :;.!"o: ,:..i., are t_hc:J'."2 . L. Jre, t he learned tria l the appellant wa s thE::· rnaL' judgment, subsidiary t:i t his p a,~ tj cnLr ::- one. that we shoul C: _; <,::- !" e vi e w the :Za l: ts in th i "' ca ~. ·?. in some ,v,·~ c:'. l. ::,rot.::nc. of appeal and t!'->e ind e pendent con : ~ac to r. important , ,) thP !:" an i s i s In ;: bat 1.,n rk , :,, ~; fo -~· sta ,_ :: hu u [.e s z:t The e,,ic! en.:.c 0£ t:1e 2noellant and h is ·.:, itn2ss ...:2.s t1EDI t h e y t ~··ar f 1 ;n_je, d by wer e workir.g o r, turg~a -. .- t h ey used materi a ls a nd equipme~ ·: su p pli e d l. J HDP. '."1 EDI b y MEDI. They s, tatcd th ,_t unless it was fi -:::- ,;t a µprov c d by a MEDI ::upervisor who was Mr. Mb e j e re. the rates cf pay were fix e d by MEDI and that t hP ap p e1 :.an : 1. :, d nothing to say on how :nu ::: n s h o u ld a 'lney stated that t r: •2ir salary depe n d(· d on customer be c h a:r.g~!d. how much work they L.'id Jc·ne and that although initiall y t b ::y were they were pctir! monthly ac; an y other p a id fortnightly, : 1 r of i t j un i or s ta f f of ;vi ED I . margin was kept bv MEDI . ' ·· h c, a pp e 11 ant :1 l s e, s ta t e d th :1 t. c h :· t!1ey could nol srar::- any w(.; !'.·k They st 2 ted late,:- that- I •J r :J ;-i Mr. Mva l o appe 11 ant vJ.s s a n responden t,:; for i 11d e pe .. d e n i~ c~.mt ra c tor. t" ad n c c ont rel over the ma nnc r t he the F .? the i . wr' ich t re < f, I <: : ~a nt s ubmi :: t c'. J that ~ f-J i: ;- ! espondenLs ~~s co ntende d - J - lie 1.t'.,:- ... 1as and t n 1t one of the resp o n(:e n t did !'laster :-:'Jpellant tha'.:" 4e argued :;:J!y,--,<_tted thac 0 ·1 all t h '::: servant: or ir: f a ct an did his work and that -h: :; ~c1lary £l uctu ate8 dep~nding on how much work he had don e . te sts whic h are employed in or er t c ~e le r ~ine whether the r2iationsh i? be tween i nr'E:: p'""n dent two parti ,~.3 j_s 1.r.c2 1k·,1dent contractor 0how contractor. any degree of control 0ver :_:,'-2 appellant. He f ur ther co;1~2nd·~cl that on the question oi inceg1.c'.i'.:ion test it ca;, ,·ot be ,:; r 6 ue d i:h~1t the appe llant 1 s work wa s int~grated in t~e ~ork of ~EDI. It ~as also Mr. Mvalo;s cont<cn 1: icm tc.::it on the econ'Jmic reality i: 2st i t was clear that the appellan i: w~ s not on a sa :a ry f rom th ~ r~s pc n dents as his fluctuatin~ monthly income depenJed on the work . done in a month and WRS not, therefore, consistent with employment. It was also Mr. Mvalc-'s conten tion that on a ,Tultiple test .i..t is to the whole facts that o n2 must look before one can determ i ne w~ether the relationship o~twP e n parties is on ~ of a master and servant. In other v.:· :'":-· ri s , one the :::: e ~= .v he the r i n t e gr a t i on an cl together they show th2~ 0r0 party was an employee of the orhei. the degree of con t , u ·1 , th (~ economic to look a t r e c:1 1. l t y e XE,r~- t est t es t ;, , 1 :; t:: o i, ( >( There i s ;--,o;J no ~ ::.ng :. e test capable G ~ .seneral or universa] applicatic,n in all c,Jse s. Th e matter is or.~ o -f intetpr e: ::a 1·ion of the contract bct\,\; e en the na rt i es and to d '. E -~e,·v·er thei r l n t E ::ti on. ' It will turn upon th e \ i ? ~ the co~rt ta kes after conbicle1ation of the relationship between the parties as ~ ~hole . There can be no rega r ded as single eler1,c°2 nt As conclusive. Denning, L. J. said i:1 the case of Stevenson Jordan and Ha.rrison Ltd. vs. McDo~ald (195~) 1 ELR page 10! a t 11: The rel r.1tL,n ~_. hip must be lc oked at as a whee'~,~ . the relatio nshi p i.·hi r h can be in "It you 1. s otte'"' see .:o recognise a .:: 0n.t:ract .s e r-v i.e.:: when It is reccg niEed that there are four ~nd :i c ia of t h .., c cr: "1·-t ct of service, nar1el 1 : employe·c',; power or self.c t L""l n, payment of wages or other remun P.rat io n , master's right tu cor.trol cne method of doing the wor k and the m6ster 's right of suspension c~ di 3m issal. The right to con t~-cil has 1::-e en regardec'. in the past as a decisive element in t;, s:-: reL;_t io ns h L , and it cont i nues to be resorted to as a useful o ne o~ deLerminin ~ the iS6Ue . However, the control test has been found wa r,ting: as a deci~1.ve test in cases dealing with profession2l people or peo ple witri some particular skill or In the case ~e Stevenson J ordan and Harrison Ltd. vs expe rience. McDonald l :: upr&J De nri i ng, :, . J. stated this: / ' .,· , / "One view wt1i c h seP.l' 13 to rur, th·:-ou gh ch<a in st ances of the th2 cont ~act vf s ervice contrac ~ o t s ~r v ic e is that un(e r :1._·_; work the ;Tl:i:. is ern;:iloy2d as part of th e bc.s ine•. s :1; 1c.1 is C''Jnf: 2s 2 n L1tcgn1l part ·:1C th e: t usin es s, wh:c:1e2.s under ~~1r the a c:::.i. tra ct of serv :. ces, his wcr k , busine sE; i S only ac-::essor y tu it!· . '3.l tnougli cL1n e h~ integrated i t, bu t into G~~ iE give appropriate wei~:.l: t case, always an d addition Th~ po~iti on ra~ i~ that a court nust t~k e inln a ccount and i.n the r e membE:.ring that the que s tion if one of mixed law in Th e own taken into account the ~erson provi des hi s to be c o ntro 1 , whether sep':lrate icc:or s t::o each of th i inc L ide, f: 2ct ors fact. to - li - ·,12 1,ir ~ s his own lab ::)U re rc: ) whR!°" equipment, whetr: e r f ur. c ~i.::mal risk he take s, what d efTh~ c f responsibil ~ ty for ·. Lnv E:.s t rr1e n t and :h e case. of Cassidy vs. management Ministry of u~alth, (1Q51J J ALL E. R. 574. t he c o urt rnu Et con s ider objectively all the i:aci.. o ::::, p resent in tl~·?. case. :-;cm1e 0~v ell, L. J. said: said _ n na s. ,va f /\3 t1e A s "One canno r:: of service 1,:ith ~r, would g :i_·Je tu the wor .,_s" . g r:: ': be y r.·~d this; 1' was h i s cc,ntract 8 contract di1 ordin 2:~' p e rson t t,e meaning wh~ ch · looking at what the inference is that he the appe lla nt was Would an ordir 2 ry Ha lawian, doing at MEDI work r:5r,op, come to the conclusion that he wa s a n employee or an indefendent contractor? Where a person doing the work is a p 2r son not ex~rcising an inde p Erldent discreti on but is directly under c t-.e prcifes:,ional con t rol or supervisici: o f his employer, i s emoloyed as a s ervant and not as a cor.t. -,~ 6 :~ t.cir ai th o u g h he may bE s p~c ia l ly ret c.i n eci as a person skilled it: the f:articular duty or r,trice for which he is t,e e n sa.i.d that a servant is an 2 6 ~,~:: who engaged . .1f his emp~ 0y er. An work s under the supe "!'" vi s i . Jn and direct:;:.o::: independent conitactcr ~ s roaster, who 5 :) that in the actual undertakes to p roduce a gi v en resuir but . snot under th:> order or cont r ol of execution of the ,~101k, he th0 person for wh o r:i h e drJe:. . it .:1ncl niay use his own di scre t ~~, n i r:i things not spe-.:ifiec! bC::fo:c hand. r.a ving :, ppellant looked at and MEDI, :-. ~ c ould use his discreti rJ n_ i.n ·.',:116 s which had not been spEc i. :!:-5eci by MEDI b e fore hano? tJ.,~ rej a tion s nip which exist 2 d between th e th c.:t the api::-21 ::.ant was his owr1 master, tti ..:!t C<.1n rt be said then, It has a 1 s 'J one who is his own It tha : bo t h to o b s 2rv e is signitic2nr , however, the Principal, ~T. Nyoni the ChieE Technical and Mr. Whi ctby , Adviser, agreed that MEDI had control over tvhat th e appellant produced at MED I 's w~rkshop and t hey further agreed that wh ~ tever Indeed came out of MEDI' s worksho r went in to MEDI' s accounts. Mr. Nyoni hiIT·s e l:f Si)ecific a lly agr e eci that the appellant's work was an integn3l part of MEDI's business. Mr. Nyoni and Mr. Whittby also agreed tha t it was MEDI who provided the machinery, premises, equi..rment and mat E-- ri als and all the documentation ;,1hich was necessarv in the R?pe:~ a nt's work . They also agreed that the appellant could not begin Eny work before it was approved by a member of MEDI' s staff. Looking at all t!-:2se factnrs, ,h.i:: fact that the appella r:c t11as st 1 pervised, that : he ma ~htnE.:ry, e qu ipm ent, materials and &ll do~urnentatio n belonged to ME DI, tl,.1 t r· 1e pr ofit margin went tJ :~SDI, tr: c: t L was MEDI who n 2 go t iat 2d th ~_ pdces with the cus~ ~m2rs ~ c o u 1 d it be reas c~ ably said on t he s ~ f~ctors that the appe." ·1 3nt wa ~; an i nlependent con:: J'.' ac to r? The :: .::-i.::i] J 1ir:ge considered s_ ,-,d f our-.d c ri es e £ acts lc: ,:r,112ci but came to t h e co~c 1 usi o ~ t hat thes2 f a ctE were o~l y co~ ~ l s tent In other wor js, he foun d on these \.\'ith a con~nic;.: o f The that facts trial Judge the respondents nad no control over the manner in which the app e llant r :, ,, t ~.e 11a ·j a wide dis ::: r et ion c ·.:er ti1e mode and did his work c11td time of doing, h i s w<:;rk. with respecL ti) the learned td al Judge that finding cannct !)2 supported by the facts which wen= b efore t.:hat conclusion dfter finding indep e 'lcleni:' contr c::. c t:ir . a u pel ~a: 11 s -2 rv ir -? . ,,:as an that cump th1:: t o - 5 - / // ( ,...0'',1T O ',._,..\ ----- I ., - - A._ '>i--1. ---, . 904 \ him. Both tv'.r. N;on i -anc. Mr. Whittby a 5 -::,-,~ eu that the app ef lant' s the appel la.9_1:.., could work was supc rvi sed by MEDI staff and not begin any work before it was approved by them. We find it difficult to see how ~nyhody in those c ircumstances coul d have a wide discretion on the ~od 2 and time of doing his work. l t seems the evidence was overwhelini ng to show c o ne 1 us i ve ly to us that the a pp e llant was a n employee of MEDI and could not be described as " his own m.:i s ter". We are satisfied ther e f o re and find that t he a pp ..:.. l_L.: nt Wc.. S an employee rJf MEDI. ;:, lear, t herefore, th a t th e re wa s an error in iaw i n that the tr i3 1 Judge made a wron ~ infer e nc e of l aw from those fdct s . It i s that ;_ '.cR t c f to the now how issue That ~rings us t he ! accident actually happened. This, too, is a highly contested i ssue. The respondents arg:..1ed th1 t ~. be ace ident happened as a resu i. t o f a deliberate as s umption of ·risk of danger by the appellant and that he proceeded to use a machinery wh~ch had no guard. Secondly, it th e was appellant fail e d the necessary safety measures which would hav e prev e nted the ~ ~cident from occurring . The main point at issue wa s- v,h !-: t her 1:he ang:i.e grinder which the appella:1t was using had a stone g'....13-::-d on it or, alternatively, i f it had a stone guard on it, .-.h:r it was not fi t te d i t removed from th e gr~nder. the 2cci dent occurred because further contended t'n ~t o r wh y was ta ke th a t t o · .. 1-i;:; '.::h2 t t hat f r0rn .. _hey t hat J.t w:1.s seem ed an old on e They c; tated they had d.-r:iwn the storekeeper from the stores. tt,e ev i de ~1c e of tl~e ' oth er n and contendec should continue usieg it. an~ was constantly wobbl i ng whe n The evid Pn ce of the appellan t and rt.,. S collea g u .:> •vhich was 'dOrl:_;_ng. ir. the ,..., ,-d~.shc p . it wa s that It there was onlv one grinde , in was operation. the a.~ t e n !:..i on of MEDI, but ~ e re t old th'3t t his grind~~ had Je e n used b y all their The ?redecesso n:. and respondent:.;; on the gr i. ,,d:~r had a the appell3t '.t who either removed it stone guard and th a t it is significant to note, or failed to get i t to i,:h-::) however, remember ve~y littl e f r om his work, tha~ he could not remem jer if his store had any stone guard. Clearly, therefore, if rhe~ e was a ny stone guard either on the the grinder or Thf. ;u~g ,!s ti on by storekeeper should havE:, remembered this :::· act , the responderts ::is testib.ed by Mr. Whlttby w':I. S th c: t: ti:1e grinder \17hi2.'.·· tr.e appe :. lant mesr !:-:2.ve n :: .-~._:ived ~itten he had a stone :;u..-:rcl ::;uggesti o n was trying to r:i t a 9-1. n c h disc to it .. were true, ,:: t o-:,~ guard lying abcut !n the ~orksh c p or in the ;toT ~ ; ~nd neith e r ~ ~ s the Indee~, it is 2lso i m~ortant case in this particular instance. that to note e·,1ide·,-..::.= when he stated immediately after ': h 2 ar. r:: ident the repor ·. he received w.cis that Equally cu"£"ious to note is t ~e fact the grinder had t 11at two days aft 2r the a ccident ha.:l happened six angle g c" -i nders were paraded befo ,e Mr. Wi :ittby and 2·.1 of them had app s:i:- ently stone gua r d s (m them . Mr. ~/hittby coul.i not say, by ju ~t lc,::)king ·J~H :S were at the si ·< g cind e r s th 0 t we~·e paraded b ~ L.1re him, wh, ,:·h working and w~nch ' o~s , i:: ·,:i den c e !""'! i s i.,.'.'1t"E'r : ,e could noc d i ·:; p u te the sta t 2me nt b y Mr. Whittby cc.-,t.: c d.:: d ~-h c.c the appella r.t r: h a ~ the- g r L ,::ler which he ~"3. S U :" J ng i n ·.','):;_· )zshop had no guard . r.he;-1 one woulc have expec tec1 f· 1~t if th c t r.o find a fror~ Mr. Ny o ni. ' ~ own ,-E,::r r not workin g . the st.o -::- ':!, ,q guard. in ;· h ,"'. i n r -- h -- ~ ! ' · ,&_~~ C,GHCOU'" ~" .· 11 ''-"~\' "'"'t -, I ' - th 2 t from , the evi,de nce _ _oY to note interesting the It was a pp e 11 ant ' s w i t n e s s ,; o ~, n a f t er the a cc id en t - t:+i,e --t-ra i nee s a t MEDI were asked to mak rc: re,::ornmendations on what should be dor,e in order to If the improve the s2fr·t:1 me asures in the workshop. safety measures ~~~e in pl&ce and the grinder had a stone guard, why was to improve safety measures :::rid indeed, if the gri1,deis that they had in the workshop all hqd stone guards and we re in world r,g orde r, why was it necessarJ ~.,-::)o n after the accident to buy n e,; gT iriJers from Brown and Clappert~n ln Blantyre . recornmenrl,-:itio:'s it necessary to ask for f::,r MEDI / ' cJ a f i t l a r g e d i s c . stone guard and the mr:;terial d::iy . the 3pp0l l ant was working at Mr. Whittby demo11strated to the court hew the gr~n0er s work together with the .:;Lcr.e 6 ~2rd, but it shoulr,: be remem1) 2rec\ i:hat the grinder on which ~r. Whittby demonst ra tei was not the grjnder on which The evidence of Mr. Whittby c1n how the accid'-eont could po ~sib iy have occurred depcncicd on this grinder which was exhibited in courl th.:.t his speculation . Jbout the accidcn: was and it was upon it: The le2rnecI trLc. 1 Jc1dge found that the g-cindcc ,)n which _based. the appellant was working had the appellant had deliberat e ly removed the safety guard to enahlc him Th c? ~ r i n d i n g w it h re s pc c t w a s b a s e ( l ri n L h c t o evidence of Mr. WhittDy to ~r1e grinder v-:hLd1 wns exhibited Eut it had been agreed by bo th parties including the Jucige th 01t the exhibiced grirnler was n ot !he c,tH' on There''o r2, Mr. Whittby's which evidence on how the accident happened was cased on c o njectur~ and the had no J n no workshop on to e\1ide,,ce contra d i c t w ha c s aid on how the In fact later in his evidence Mr. Whittby did accident happened. the gri nde;- on which the appellant concede that he was t:old the was working did not have a stone guard. This apparently j ~ same the immediately afte r ln our view, there can be no doubt, especi.-.lly in the accident. absence of any evidence: the ap~eile1ut s-=.id, that the cau s e ot ch e ~ ccident was due to t~ e 9bsenc e of~ st one guard on the grin d er . s i tuat•C< ~s There was and hi s w i t :12 s s f ateful day. 2 pp e l l a n t report which Mr. Nyoni relevance that 0 0ntradicting 1-1h;:it the appellant th2 factual in Court. :-cL1ting 1,;orking. receive d it w;-,1:; that ::.:h a t the 'vas to It is a~ sc clear, in our view, thac t:w disc -,,,;hich broke fhe eviden c e was that the di s c h 8 d no i:b res in it was faulty. which strengthen and p·event it from sp -1 intering badly. r~ is interesting to ob:,crvc fio.1 Mr. Whittby' s evidence that although initially he S' ' Cr~1cd to know somcthicg ,1tc-ut discs, cmcl suggcslcd that the p. Jrticular disc whi c h broke had fibres in it he later on professed ignorance or, th2 icsue of discs. When he was asked for his opinion on the dis cs he stated that he could not comment as he was only a~ enginee~ a n d nor a manufacturer of discs. He was evasive on stmp1e ancJ We do not think Mr. Whittby was an i~pressive witnesE . forw. Jrd questions. :c;t u 1 ight We are sat::-isficd, t h e ;-efore, and fin d, th e acc id ent :t was occurred because tl~c g-:--i nd c r did not hav e a s tc re g uar:J. the duty of MEDI, as the ap pel lant, tv fH-,JVide sufficient saf e, -wor k j ng cond: tions, sounc1 a nc s afe ecp ipr,,en _ and In te rms of th 0 Employment Act, t ~e respcn~cnt~ were materials. i n breach of the i r '.11 c u l cl IN,, ::if th ei c ~L: i-y of c-dso find that the r~sp'.)nc\ cn ts were 1n b re e ch t h!? emp loyer 0 1_· s t a t L, :_ :, r y du t y the c:u p e 1 l an t . tnat t o ·- 7 -- <- to The h.::ivc sa id. ,n hi s :i s we .:il r ec1d\ inj,.il'i C'., ;l.1i::fer-C'd a '.-: i.nu h e wil] \vhich cir:- , t he appe11ant hns l e ft a ,m for some y eaY :. "c; perm'Jnent . '/ disab 1 -.,J th C:'. nervcf;. thP C'::?.r - this ar::ciclc•r ,L 1-!(..~ resul L ,:0 -r,, ~,' ri ous of t o indeed. t o c ome 1J .. =c,c.1s c, of the, suffer pai n t'r1is pa"-;, so.,1~times injury to e:::1 rnin g that !1i:= rises h c r e l r. 1 u r i I:' s a 1 1 ci i s c a pa c i t y h a s ·..;e ry littl e nc: Cell· 1:m 1 er~ _10 yme nt of Hi s li e c;r :1 tec1 Lh ~1L the amenities of life ,;ji. J be severely limi::- c d . l o r·,ge r C.:o g 2 rdeni.ng; h e Cc. nnot hav e a bath on hi s he can now own. He can on'.y sleep on o ne s ici e . He stated that h e cmilcl nol apply for Ct c, f c al _ior->s a.,d that h e now l ooks Uke a l l o :d pcrsn n . He cannct s1.~·;,igl:-tc;1 hls Left arm. T;:-,i::r e lJ r .: 11 a c1 v e: s P 1 y a f f e c t e d c:in be nc dc •,bt !) y ,_;o wit h his le ft a:-m. 1-1 ~~ h as stc1ted that c ~i:t_j ;,ue t h c r :u t o f..v l ook ;:1 1 ,1r , j,·, · ;n Lh c cl<1 111;1 ge s to h ad" s uflC'r_·u i s lik c i y in asc;e s ~·i .,,:~. ·iil1. put Lh C' the ~;; Li-, whi c h t h ~ Co 11 rl rn, i s t c.i?t 2 of Lrinl. ·,,>u;; ;ci n: i·J c :s c 1,i;11 ,jr, ~ !~o ;;arty ,; uf[ c n .·, 1 ~hl :v , ,(·:1 Lh c CG,:ri.. co·mC's ' he posi t'.::>,; ~,~, '")ecn it· h e h:J cl ~, -~ rern 1-:1Lion. ,,.,j ll t o r Jn jtrv . t 1\nd ·,'onsicl e r :: ,,d :::- ir cL1n1s '.nn c cs of 3 dee i < v e effect 0 11. The gC'neral princir,le in awarding carnages is for L hP Courl, ;;t such ;i after consl '.1-..:- -ing .::ill ~br• rele vant Fact0 1-s, snmc sum of monL'J wm c h in_jui- ecl :n_jury position as 1.-. ,, [ () f o r which h e iL ' wn s assess da:,1a 6 '.c: l ' ;1; n ar 1cl at the th,.:'. p cr ci c ulnr sufferi n g i.n future. This plaintiff h a,-. r;::, :--t i cu l ar plaint:ff ;ire is because ~h e bound thr:> a sse ssment of d:ir~ages. T\,c effect of the irijvr-:e'- on the appeUa nt has been the ;'JSS o[ ",. J.'.:!S earning e , the time of t: he a,~ci denl use of his 1 °)ft anr, i n t n K 5 0 0 per ,'i or· ::- :, . h e business ;- ,1: tors increased . We the ;ncluding .::- h e 1,:1t l11·2 proper aw a r · ; f 'J ~- p :1 fr· f o r l oss of <'Jm0:, i L i cc 1.·.'c· y n u n g ma n a a p p c l l a , , t Th c The ~ nju r ie s general ea rning a f',n rn l,i ·, that K60,000 ()0 .:, capacity. Th'-_r e wiil general clamagc·s. I, 'S, 000. 00 : ' ;,, ul l ;i L r; 1 i n \' c I a n d h ave great l y disabl eri him fr om \~ , . Lhink ea rnin g 01 total award of K80,000. CJO el s th .:: relcvd 1L ,JC circ satisfied L l1:1~ l<.1 .'.', , 0 CJ ;,1 J J ~. 1 , ' cl ,:,,,r-er'u l y co ns ider<::l a ~ l the i njur y anci c.:1 n d s u ff e ri n g s h o u l rJ h n tt11 nk a prorw r aw;ird r,c ner ;1l fitt er. t,;r his r, r o per th~..:refore be Th e , e w c r c: po s s l bi l i t i e s ea rning power might co , 1:..,::_ ri 0 r.1.::>i y t h a t he w -' :; traclc• as ,1 that t,:::: ·J ,_ loss o f fitter . li viP g ·:; ·:ffe r i!, c ~ n g ,ciw e1rci y ~ a r s t- .:.-- j -~ i1 g e cl ace~ h: s th e c., f He ·33 i , :; 1)f i s We r ,1 r t i C s 1,J i l h L h (' :1, 1 : i ;..:,i: () I _ , u s L j <. (' 11;1 p ,1,- Li; 1l i c, t1 mpirc o:ily <'11 ' r 1- i1 '<' ·,,·01~d the m~n-.:''.:'· ,- l ike :_ c1 i n w;-- jc h of s y s t (' m ·. !: i s 1- , ~.!)"C l i vc c I ;1 i 111 c, 1· clc 1- r-1,c ,-, . i L oul L Cl prove f hr• i 1- Judge e nc ensure lh;1, Lh,, J r;i v 1-uJcs . 'II,,·, exch.::inging ct'ci;:u 1 c; is er to the Judge' t,) as k q1;.::· ~~ Lic. i1 s Lo c l arif~, ..:~n y p r: int of uncertainty rv id c :icc. occas ion whc•, 1- :1c up cudgel~ c· ; .. :insc <•nc record wh(:_' ,, h ·on: the unfortun~r -: ~.11p rc c.,:=: .:on up hi s mi,.c.. determine ir. ~h,_, rn ;~l,c gC'nc r .::i l ob~. e rvc1Lion s on some c1spccls t ,~c case proc c eclecl at the trial. Our I i g h l i n g iH l V (' r s (1 r y O n (' ;1 .. : c· 11,1 t c1 tlw ._ ;;•. '> l:i1-c r·,~ c1r :-: :· op0n :. · , ,111' L-.': L or Ll- ,~ ,c- nn "'-; ,; f:- 3i ,, <: took the ;: 1,jt_c i' g~1vc Judg e h ad already mncl e to th,· ·'-'-·or~1'11 1,' <' Ilic f t i 11 f u ,;ny .lf Lh c pu·t ·r: . t h at the crucial I ri :J l Jud - ,"' Thi\ th e qu ~ st" c,w; L' Y the the:. Jn pa 6 e iss u es which h e ··1tc -c.-ci J c c r,-s Unfor :_ : :·"'··~ e ly , lwing ' l•) l i'c:1.:-ty. c, F 'I l it· 1·<, 1 < o l th e tri, one' of l en, n ccl f-o: 1ghl . 11dgc· (' Ill e· ,::- , :~(· ·. ,i Lh r- c n,: ,,as '. :: c' tl·r: ... . i1 1 on (: (,('S 2.7 j, (J I the act ion Li vu~w of what MEDI and Mr, Wl1i t t bv ,Judge There is .ilso the lL · tortunate comment by the tria l when he states that tl,_0, 2.ppellant was ungrateful for appa r E-ntly in bringing particular pe r j o<f of hospitalisati. on. While ~-·h:1t MEDI and M:· . Whittby did £01 the appellant rmst be cnmr:·ec deC: , it should no c be rE,g arded as quid pro quo for t h e appell 3 nt ' ~ legal rights t o c laim r erar at i cn for an injury which was clear l y caused through a fai lur ~ 6f duty. :ippellant' s during 11irr1 for the ciid We would the~efore allow this appeal and the appellant will have costs here and below. DELIVEFl:':D in op e n Co'Jrt this 15th day of Apri 1, Blantyre. ._./"/ 19 94 at - i I .[t ..... 16~~(? MKANDAWIRE, J. A. \ Signed:. ~< 4 ttA-l {j;~ :~. • • •••\II•"<,······-··~··· ~· CHATSIKA, -J. A.