Landmark Ltd and Anor v Phiri (SCZ 11 of 1995) [1995] ZMSC 50 (8 June 1995)

Sox. udi)Gi-'i£,^T JO. 11 Or i 99*5 a??£Al_ JJ. 62 QF iSS4. ■'1 Cjjx'f -J.< ZrkULA HpLJc.1 AT LiJSAiU l-ivil Jurisdiction) BiTdcEP: Lafluiiiarx Li»ni tod Jicxson Sakai" ano *iii an Samson Pitiri 1st Appell-.-ut 2nc Appall ant .lesporke.it -oram: Gardner, Sa.vd.a and Cheila JJ3., utn April i?95 -me 3th June, 1995 tC.i’*. .-kiKeto of Cnristopnar, .-tassel Jook and Co., oDpoarco for t.< ‘ appellants. *J* o. Xapongo uf Jkwazi Ca-onioors, appeared for tin respondent. J u J G .. E d i Gardner j.s. delivered the judgment of toe court. Cases referred to:- (1) rjohaaied end An ;r y Cnumou SuZ Judgment is.i. 3 of 1993. on the ota of April, 19§E we allowed this appeal and sent tae case o'ck co the acting registrar for d-amag^s to *>e assessed on the basis of tnc v-ilue of tae responaent’s vehicle it the time of tne relevant accident. Tao question t c .sts w is roserveu. The facts of tills co.se ..re that the respondent’s vehicle was damaged in an accident, and judgment was signee f.r sucn da.je.ges t be assessed. At tnc assessment the respondent gave evidence that ho hoc paid c-ignteen thousand runes f.,r nis vehicle .io year previous to tne accident. No evidence was caileu by tiie res,;-.indent as t; tne value ..f the vehicle it the time ef the accident, but he appeared to accept a statement in o letter .f the insurance company to tae effect tnot tae volue f tne vehicle oofore tne accident was mor than «C55d,uOO. Oo. In nis evidence tne respondent said that he claimed tne value at the time ,f the assessment in respect of which a • expert witness was coileo but wiiich the respondent estimated to- ue four millica kwacha. J (5b) evidence was calle- >n behalf of the appellants to the effect that the value of the vehicle oefor-e eno accident had oeen usscssec oy the insurance company ssessars as being between four hundred an-r fifty thousand kwacha anu five nun ore.. th -usand xwach', but tnis evidence was referred t in „rv.or t_ sul.\)-,rt the unsuccessful argument taat it w ui nvc- oeen cheaper t; repair the vehicle. Tnis argument tns dealt with r>y Lio K-imoc acting registrar who said that ho accepted the export Mini-n that it w ul J have been uneconomic L repair tno vehicle. There was n ippoal against tint finding. The ap,.cl 1'nts* written Ho;<s ^f argument referred t. a claim Liat ecu* c.st of repairs sauild oo censi •.lorea but tnis was ,utsi.: the terms f the o. m r in Jum wf A/wal., and, in any event, was a t referred to oy .ir. mkot. in nis -.rgument. In his jjegaioat n assessment th_ ie?rno. J acting registrar sai_:- "Tno jur_j .se ..f this replacement is U -tit the plaintiff in too position no was in oefore tne accident. In this regard, I wulc like t. mention that the v.aiue oeing looked at as the ra/dace.7ient value is what it wauR cost ti a vehicle f the typo of tno , i linciff's .71 >t r vehicle in it's c.aditi a before tno <’cci.i_iit in 1 oil, in tner w-t.'s a ;no year R ve.iiclo. I niust say I had ex, .acted t. hear fn.i the plaintiff evidence to guieo this c <trt .s t. tno current cost of a similar vehicle k-eey. In.ood one would nave ox ect--d opinions frmi exports in the field _f tnis issu^. Sadly for us, 11 I got was on ..sserti n by the plaintiff t_ the effect that a similar vehicl woui.. t - lay c st f.ur milli ?a kw-xnn ...... Taxing tec .original c.sc int acc unt the current m ney value I find md held that an am unt ,f throe million kwacna w>uld ee a fair an equitable wuunt as replacement value f the plaintiff’s meter vehicle.“ The laarne.. acting registry then awar.’.-et- throe .iiilii n xw.icna fr.® which ao o^vucte.. the sum vf five nunr-r^^ Li "us mid xwache, oeing Lio .n ;eat the respondent received on sale ?f too wrecked meter vehicle. The appellant appals against tn at a?<ard. The first grvun . ef appeal was that tne acting registrar had .niseiroctea nimsetf ignoring t curaent !™y evidence rr..,ucc.; oy the appellant snowing the pro-accioant market vaiik- /f the iikar vehicle, and the soc...nu that too learncc acting registrar n-at, in the absence f export valuitijn, n basis far awarding the aiirunt Li.it he awarded. vr. Dakota- an och.alf of Lie appellant peinUd -ut that, in t-rms .rf -ur ju gment in ^ahane-d an ■ -UL-r v dhumou (1), the value ;f the venicic at the time f tno accident was the value wnich siiould nave b-een awarueo. Ho argued that the .nly figures cvaileeic L; the court Del.jW were th se produced oy the up. eliant snowing that Lie assesses value ;f tne vehicle oy the insurance company assessors was Rur hun.ro ano fifty tnousin-. kwacha t. five hundred thousand kwacha. (57) rL argue:, chat it was the -uty ‘f the respondent t ;r uc-j acceptable evidence f an alternative valuation if he uiu n. t iccopt such valuation, and that tne mjst that the responGont sn?ulr5 have ueen :war...o.j was the six nunorob and fifty thousand kvrena menti oneu by the insurance c^nniny ,-lus tne average rate < b-.iiK deposit interest fr.j-ii the -^ie ,f tne accident, tne Kth August, 19s1, t- the eato of the assessment, the Utn Jec.w^r, is^-3, with interest thereafter at six er c^»t. .ir. on behalf 'f tn: res :nrent put in ho.vs of arguments in which he argueo th it the value te ee taxen rdr assessment snoui : n_t oj the vjiuc ac tile time of the wr ng, as tn at :-rinci )k only V/lie t; ? seller/euyor relationship. On his attention being ..rawn t.> this court's judgment in the .<3h*uikid case Ar. Kap.ng:- -:k n t pursue this line of argumert. On tne evidence oof r? the c.urt it is clear that tn.:- iearner’ acting registrar hae before him nly too valuation of tne insurance assessors, wmen wouL. naturally do in favour a tne appellant, an., as tne loarnoo acting registrar himself Observe.:, tne rosppn eat hj.,2 n t ut in my independent valu?.ti it t„ assist nis case. It is :1s. a parent ch .t the learnac acting registrar ox ccto. the res.\;n..iont t> . rc.,uce ^vivonco .f uu- currant cost f n similar venicle, in. tins weul., in vice . f mr fin ing in tne case to waich we nave referre , neve Jeea ?.n incerr-.-ct measure ,f the ..’jfl 'o. s waich shoul have been awar.e.. it feluws therefore tn.it the Uorne acting registrar, when ho arrive... at a figure f.r amages, was considering too value at tiia cete ,f nis assessment. Apart fr. Mi the insurance assessors's valuation mi the insurance cxnpany's j.-inka tnore was no evi enco to su<rt the r..s,>jnoent‘s view .f wnat sn.ul.. have icon tne assessed value et tne dat^ of the ecciuont, -in. f.jr tnis roas.n, this c„urt c asi iereo t.iit in tru interests ,f justice tne rds4,eik.ent sneui. have tac /rtunity t.i argue- tne c_se -afresa eof<-ro tne registrar, with supporting evidence .s t the value >f the vehicle at the time .f the acci'onc, vinca no saeul- nave produce., at the first liearing. fho court therefore, or.ere«. that, in ucfault of agreement between the- parties, the matter should uu sent oacx for reassessment oy tne registrar. On tne qu^sti -n uf the c>sts ;f tnis Appo'.l ,sr. ?iaket^ argued tn at the whole appeal ha:; uoen unnecessary an na:’ ocen cuuso.'t by the respondent's initial claim f.r t;ie current vine of the vehicle, instea- _f its value .it the time ,f tne accident, an^ the res, ,,n..erit’s failure t ,..reduce independent (58) jf sucn value at the first Hearing wiica wjul '. have ankle..' tin registrar U assess the c Tract value at that hearing. In any ov^nt 'C**hi} iWv'U argue-J that no <i;.; n t c ncove tnat a re-assessment sh?uk; Ke fliuinteineC tint it was the ;*uty f the r^s ik ejc>kent eviJence ef tn< correct valuation chat, in . .fault . f przucinj sufficient e support his case in tne first instance*, t>k rcspan ..ant’s ci aim sh ui.j : have <kk.n aismissc.j, r tne figures fr.jia tne insurance ccm.'cny shjul eoen acce./tc-j <s tne .icsis f.r the .iwarJ. In tne •.r.iri-iry course if event c.sts f nn u ;eal f U the ev>nt Hit in this case we note that in t;u c.urt aeku neitaer .?arty su ,gostef t) the ic rrne. actlay registrar tnat tfk .r?/cr vaiuati.jj .f the vehicle wa$ j^s value it tiu time 'f the acci_ant. It w-as not the vdty f the a valient t > erjUk. tne r<s.k-n .ent’s case fcr hi;j, hewc-ver, jjc mta tint cr iss-exnmi^.^j^ <>f the res.x’n ana was ._irecL.c s.'lely at nis c-x•.etoiica as " valuer :f chicles t;- assess tik vuauc >.t Lie time ,/f the essessihcnt. It was theref re , acce.'te^ ey c ,unsel fcr inc vV-ellant tii.it tnis w a kt have jeon the r >,’fiat time far valuati w, in c.-i uit : f .iis .rgument that the venicie night t' h- ve .jeoij re.aairc-w. In tne circumstances it is . ,jv1 .his that j.;t.n c unsel c.ritribute , c tne wr Hj valuation ay tne leernct. actinj registrar in. j jtn were res. ..nsi^le f -r the necessity f _.r tills :j .eal, which aas resulte. in tnis c.urt i. jueicatinj iV->n i,ne r j,><r time cl which valuation sh-eul:, he c.asi■•ere;.., that is, in this case, tne -..’ate jf the acci-lent. ,.s ikitnor jj.rty s.ixiL take the whole i'.lamu f t this unnecessary he „rcer tnac eucn .aerty snail ■ .t its ■ wn c>sts ;f the a.ipaal. _ J. k lariFj.ier . L. kk;ijH J. j. Cmtiii