Kanyama v AG (Civil Cause 961 of 1994) [1996] MWHCCiv 22 (28 May 1996)

D~N· ~ ....... - -~YYL. J..:. J . OLIVER KAN"Y. A11A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P and THE ATIDRNEY GENERAL DEFENDANT CDRAtl: E. B. TWEA tlsisha, Crnmsel for the Plaintiff Defendant/Counsel absent RULING This action -was brought by the plaintiff for false imprisonment and incidental damages to be aggravated. The defendant's filed a defence. The matter came up The defenda11t failed to file the for directions. affidavit of documents and the plaintiff applied for and got an unless order from the Court. The defenda11t di d not comply and the plaintiff proceeded with assessment. On the appo_inted day the defendants did not tum up and the plaintiff proceeded with the assessment. The plaintiff told the court ·that he was on a plane to Harare when he . was arrested in 1983. He was in custcdy from Janmry 1983 to July 1984. He was never told why he was arrested, even at the date of his release. It was his evidence that the cell he was put in \w. S overcrowde:l. He vJas made to sleep next to the night i· I i f>}-~, :t~~---· " ,,, ·' -, ' bucket which would fill up at night and overflow. The foo:l -was bad and toilets filthy. They were forced to . walk on human excreta bare foot a11.d as a result he callus on his developa:I. a skin disease and has underfoot and suffers from sleeplessness. Court had occasion to view the callus. , It vras further his evidence that initially his wife would come to visit him but later she never did because they told her that he was a rebel a11.d that he would I hasten to say that this is hearsaay and I will not ref er to further evidence on this issue. - never come out. Further he had He told this Court tbat he run a produce business a11.d an Arts and Signs concern. He would earn about K10 , 000 a month. curios, pro:luce, motor vehicle and domestic furniture and appliances which all I wish to point out disappeared due to Police action . If all these that all this was hearsay ail.d opinion. things disappeared through Police action, his wife and laJ.l.dlord are available and would have children or t estifia:l. reason, I am of the same the For plaintiff deliberately left IBtters to pure conjecture by Court as to loss of property business records aJl.d harrassment to his family. I refrain from putting any emphasis on these issues. the view that At the end of the day, I clearly have evidence of the the effect of unhygenic plaintiff's detention and looked at the defendant' s surroundings. I have defence. · It is my view that it raises no issues than I am incl ined to believe that this genera1 ·traversity. is the best that the State bad as a defence which in fact is no defence at all. Even the affidavit of documents does not disclose anything prior to the intend. Erl litigation. , I find that the plaintif f was in custcrly for 18 months and the State has no plausible reason for having put him in prison. He sufferal hardship and contractB:l the plaintiff K180, 000 as imprisonment and costs for this I award -·· skin disease. damages for false action. PIDNOUNCED IN CHAl'1BERS this 28th day of tray 1996, at Blantyre.