Bauleni v AG (Civil Cause 887 of 1994) [1994] MWHCCiv 17 (13 December 1994)

----- "' - IN 'I'IIE IIIGII counT OF M/\L/\W I PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIV I L CAUSE NO. 887 OF 1994 BETWEEN: JOLEX BAULENI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAINTIFF -AND - THE ATTORNEY GENE RAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFENDANT CORAM : TWEA EB , REGISTRAR Mazoe of counse l for the plai n tiff Defe n dant counsel a bsent OHDE:R This actio n wAs bro u ght by the p l aintif for false imprisonment . intention to defendant, did not file a defe n ce at all. On 20th September the plaintiff obtained judgment in defau lt of defence. On the same date n otice of assess ment of damages the plain ti ff filed a returnable o n 11 t h November, 1994 . The defendant al though had shown On the appointed date both parties appeared . The plaintiff called one witness in his case . It was the plaintiff evi d ence that h e was dismissed from his job as storekeeper with Distri ct Relief Office is Phalombe on 23rd October , 1992. follow.ing day at 12 midnight his former boss one Mr Chinkhunda brought police officers at his house and t hey arrested h i m. He was initially kept at Phalombe Police for · 3 days before h e was transferred to Mulanje Prison. t h e It was further his evide nc e t h at on 9th appeared bef ore court for plea o n a c h arge of The case was acquitted . remanded in custody n ot on bail . in cou r t untiJ o n 12t h August. , that at It was his co nt e nti o n February, 1993 he theft by servant . 1 993 when he was a ll times he was This is the basis of t h e present claim . issue of Jiability was already decided by judgment entered on behalf of the plaintiff . What cal l s to b e decided by this court is the quantum of damages that wou ld co mpe n sate the plaintiff. The t h e I must, on the outset , deal with the question of the period that the plaintiff was impri so ned. The plaintiff contends that 2/ .... - 2 - or say 8 months and 12 days, it was 10 months October, 1992 to 12th Au gust, 1993. The defence however contends that it can only be up to 10 February, 1993 where the plaintiff appeared in court and then remanded on bail, as is indicated by court record which the defendant asked the court to There was no counter argument on this take judicial notice of . point. the chain of the defendant submission causation was broke n by the re ma n d by court . i.e 24th It was that I have considered both views and I am inclined to agree with the defendant. From t h e time accused appeared in court his remand on bail on custody is by sanction of the court. The plaintiff therefore cannot be h ear d to say this had no legal t hu s find that the period in issue is from basis or backing. 24th October, 1992 to 10t h February , 1993 , about 3½months. I The plaintiff in submission made reference to cases before this court in which this co u rt made wards: CHARLES MKANDAWIRE VS CC 885 of 1993, AG CC 1364 of 1993, WINFRED MPHANDE VS AG These cases are all JAMES MALIKETI VS AG I would caution myself from trying to make i.llustrative , but equations in the cases . On e should at all times bear in mind the words of the learned Registrar, Mr Mwaungulu as he was then, in the case of DONALD NGULUBE vs THE AG CC 1564 of 1993, where in he said: - CC 1455 of 1993. "It is not advisable, in my opinion, to relate awards of false al though time is one of the cardinal factors considered. 11 imp risonment in relation to time to be In this case , was that such damages are at large and into account several variable factors involved. the view of the Registrar, which I support, to take time judge has just than the the the cases of WILFRED MPI-IANDE, In this case, I have looked at the circumstances, plaintiff was initia l ly interdicted t hen dismissed and then arrested and charged but finally acquitted . This case bears no resemblence to JAMES MALIKETI and CHARLES MKANDAWIRE referred to above wh ere the plaintiff were innocently I would therefore refrain arrested and never appeared in court . from drawing an equation betwee n the said cases and the present one. The only thing t h at would influence my finding in that the value In my view K30, 00 would adequately compensate the plai n tiff for the loss of liberty and all the anguis h atte n dant to loss of freedo m, and I so order. for money has depreciated. 3/ .... - 3 - The plaintiff js also awarded costs for this acti on . Pronou n ced in chambe r s th is 13th day of December, 1994 at BJanty re. ---==- ---N':I~ E k\ Twea REGISTRAR F ~HE HI GH COURT