Witness v Dick , Sammy's transport and Britam Insurance Company Limited (Personal Injury Cause 376 of 2018) [2021] MWHC 329 (31 May 2021)

foy{ REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY PERSONAL INJURY CAUSE NUMBER 376 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MANUEL. WITNESS AND JOHN DICK SAMMY'S TRANSPORT BRITAM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CORAM: WYSON CHAMDIMBA NKHATA (AR) Mr, Mwabungulu - of Counsel for the Claimant Mr. Jere - of Counsel for the Defendant Ms. Chida - Court Clerk and Official Interpreter CLAIMANT DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT 38° DEFENDANT ORDER ON ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES The claimant commenced these proceedings by writ of summons claiming damages for pain and suffering, loss ofamenities of life, damages for disfigurement, damages for loss ofearning capacity. special damages and costs of this action. Apparently. the action emanates from an accident in which the claimant was walling on the extreme right-hand side of Limbe-Chiradzulu Road from the direction of Limbe towards Chiradzulu Boma and was hit by a Mitsubishi Truck registration number BP7605 driven by the 1° defendant, owned by the 2"4 Defendant and insured by the 3% Defendant. The issue of liability was settled in favour of the claimant through a Judgment by Honourable Justice Chirwa after full trial. The matter was then referred to this court for assessment of damages which I must now consider. Manuel Witness v john Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 1 When the matter came for assessment of damages the claimant identified and tendered into evidence his witness statement in which he averred that following the accident he sustained crushed right foot, left foot with degloving wound exposing the flesh and painful chest and fractured clavicle. He was taken to Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital ("QECH"). He was taken to theatre where his right leg was amputated below the knee. He showed the Court where the knee was amputated. He was admitted at QECH from the 21" February 2018 to 26" February 2018. He tendered a Medical Report marked MW 2" to substantiate the same. He went on to testify that before the accident he used to earn a living by doing piece works like gardening. He was also a subsistence farmer. He also used to ride his bicycle when going long distances. He testified that can no longer do all these. He now relies on handouts from his relations in order to survive. Lastly, he testified that he paid MK3,000.00 for the Police Report as endorsed on the police report. In cross-examination, he stated that he was now 45 years since he was 42 years at the time of the accident. He stated that he did not have the photo stat copies of X-rays and he believed they were probably with his lawyers. He also stated that he did not give proof of earnings before the Court. There was no re-examination. The second witness for the claimant was Mr Master Henry Yesaya. He testified that he works at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital ("QECH") as Senior Orthopaedic Officer. He further testified that he is a Trauma and Orthopaedic Technologist. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree. He further testified that part of his duties at QECH is to assess and treat patients and, further, write reports on their medical status. He stated that it was on 4" May, 2018 when he assessed Mr Manuel Witness on the injuries he suffered February, 2018. He proceeded to assess Mr Manuel Witness on his arising from a road accident on injuries and also took into account the history behind the injuries. His assessment was that Mr Manuel witness sustained crushed right foot, left foot with degloving wound exposing the metatarsals and tendons, and painful chest. Mr Manuel Witness was taken to theatre where below knee amputation was done on the right leg and the other wounds were debrided and dressed. It was his further evidence that x-ray films also showed that Mr Manuel Witness suffered fractured left clavicle. Lastly, he stated that Mr Manuel left shoulder, painful left foot, and has permanent loss of the Witness complains of painful limb. He further stated that after his assessment he proceeded to write a medical report which was marked limb, painful exhibited as "MEHY" and he tendered the same in Court. In cross-examination, He stated that after assessing the Claimant on qth May, 2018, he never saw him again since the Claimant was referred to his nearest hospital i.e. Chiradzulu Hospital to continue treatment Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal injury Cause Number 376 of2018 Page 2 as an outpatient. He stated that as part of his duty he used to make Ward rounds and was seeing the Claimant post theatre operation. He did not operate on the Claimant. He further stated that he did not bring X-ray films since the current system is that they use digital technology and old x-rays which used analogue were destroyed. He, further, corrected that the date of the accident was 21* February, 2018 not 2019 as reflected in his statement and he said that it was just a mistake. He further stated whatever is contained in his medical report is what was obtaining as of 4 th May, 2018. He, further, testified that tt is possible that a Patient can improve later on i.e. the pain can go away or some health issues may arise. In re-examination, he confirmed that he would not be able to know the state of the Patient after 4" May, 201 8 since it was three years after the Medical Report was made. The Defence paraded one witness, Crescent Mwase. He stated that he was a Legal Associate for the 3" Defendant. He testified that the 3° Defendant was sued in the present action by virtue of being the insurer of Motor Vehicle registration number BP 7605. He testified that the cover of insurance includes a limit for the 310 Defendant's liability towards third parties such as the Claimant herein. He then testified that ta Defendant's liability is limited to the sum of MK5,000,000 for injuries and deaths for Claimants the 3 as per page 3 of the Policy titled 'Limit of the Amount of the Company's Liability Under', as read with section {1 (a) and 2(a) on page 8. The said copy of policy was exhibited as P 1 and tendered into evidence. In cross-examination, He first confirmed that the policy limit of MK5,000,000.00 was only limited to death and bodily injury. He was then shown the said page 3 and he confirmed that nowhere is it written that party and party costs are part of the limit. He however stated that in terms of their policy, the limit includes party and party costs. He further stated that the third Defendant does not pay party and party costs where the limit of insurance ofMK5,000,000.00 has been paid out. He stated that Medical Expenses had a limit of MK50,000.00 and that they were paid to the insured where the insured had incurred such expenses. He was however shown the Policy document and he confirmed that there was no amount ot limit, [In re-examination he continued to state that their policy limit of MK5,000,000.00 is inclusive of MIK5,000,000.00 costs. Such was the evidence on assessment of damages. I would like to thank both counsel for the guidance as evidenced by the well-researched submissions filed in support of the assessment of damages herein in which several authorities have been cited and attached to the assessment bundle. This court has given the submissions and the authorities counsels cited the most anxious consideration. Manuel Witness v Jo hn Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 3 Turning to the law, the fundamental principle which underlines the whole law of damages is that the loss. damages to be recovered must, The principle was laid down in numerous case authorities more particularly by Lord Blackburn in the case of Livingstone y. Rawyards Coal Company (1880) 4 AC 25 in the following terms: in money terms, be no more and no less that the Plaintiff's actual where any injury or loss is to be compensated by damages, in settling a sum of money to be given as damages, you should as nearly as possible get at the sum of money which will in the same position as he put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered loss, would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation. However, it ought to be borne in mind that it is not possible to quantify damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and deformity as claimed in this matter with mathematical precision. As a result, courts use decided cases of comparable nature to arrive at awards. That ensures some degree of consistency and uniformity in cases of a broadly similar nature: See Wright -vs - British Railways Board [1983] 2 A. C. 773, and Kalinda -vs - Attorney General [1992] 15 M. L. R. 170 at p.172. As such this court will have recourse to comparable cases to arrive at the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff. Pain and suffering Pain means the physical hurt or discomfort attributable to the injury itselfor consequent upon it. It includes the pain caused by any medical treatment which the plaintiff might have to undergo. See Sakonda vy S. R. Nicholas Civil Appeal Cause No. 67 of 2013. 'Suffering' on the other hand denotes the mental or emotional distress which the plaintiff may feel as a result of the injury. This includes but not limited to anxiety, worry, fear, torment and embarrassment. In City of Blantyre v. Sagawa [1993] 16 (1)MLR 67. 'pain' and 'suffering' were defined to suggest physical experience of pain caused by consequent upon the injury while "suffering" relates to the mental element of anxiety, fear, embarrassment and the like. Loss of amenities of life In the case of Kanyoni v Attorney General [1990] 13 MLR 169, 171 the court held that loss of amenities of life must include the loss of all the things the claimant used to be able to do, see, and experience. Justice in the case of Mtika v. US Chagomerana t/a trans Usher (Zebra Mwaungulu (as he then was) Transport) [1997] 2 MLR 123, 126 explained that this head covers the loss caused by the injury in that the claimant will be unable to pursue the leisure and pleasures of life that he used to enjoy but for the injury, Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 4 Disfigurement The claimant is also claiming damages for disfigurement. Damages under the head of disfigurement are paid for the change in physica! form of a person injured either as a result of the impact of the injury or its treatment, such as scar coming in as a result ofsurgical operation necessitated by the injury. It is a change in appearance but it is capable of limiting a person from doing certain things- see - Francis Chikoti vs- United General Insurance Company Limited Personal Injury Cause No. 730 of 2016. Justice Potani (as he was then) in the case of James Chaika v NICO General Insurance Company Ltd Civil Cause No. 909 said disfigurement is not a matter to be taken lightly and casually as it is something that one has to permanently live with. Claimant's case on general damages it is said that the claimant sustained crushed right foot which led to amputation of the right In this case, leg below the knee, fracture of the clavicle, degloving wound exposing the metatarsals and tendons and paintul chest. Counsel representing the claimant has asked the court to have recourse to the following Cases: » Edson Lwanda ys Terrastone Company Limited, Personal Injury Cause Number 58 of 2012, in which the claimant was injured in a road accident and his leg was amputated above the knee. He was awarded MK 14, 500, 000.00 for pain, suffering, and foss of amenities of MK 600,000.00 for loss of amenities of life MK 1,500, 000.00 damages for disfigurement, MK 2, 848,000.00 loss of earning capacity bringing the total award to MK19,084,000.00. The award was made on 230 January, 2013. Rabecca M'bwana vs The Attorney General and NICO General Insurance Company Limited, Civil Cause Number 1958 of2009, in which the claimant was involved in a road accident and his right leg was amputated. The court awarded him MK13,070,220.00 being damages for pain suffering, and loss of amenities of life, disfigurement and cost of prosthesis. The award was made on 17" July2016. e Peter Nsona vs Lujeri Tea Estate Limited, Civil Cause 857 of 2015, sustained amputation of the arm. He was awarded the sum MK19,000,000 pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life, MK7,500,000 damages for loss of earning capacity. The Plaintiff was thus awarded MK (before factoring in 30 % contributory negligence). The award was made on 24" May, 2018. in which the claimant Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of2018 Page S e Richard Chinsinga vs Electricity Supply Commission of Malawi, Personal Injury Number 59 in which the Claimant's arm was amputated due to a workplace incident. The Court of 2018, awarded the sum of MK20,000,000 for pain and suffering, MK5,000,000 loss of amenities of life, MK5,000,000 damages for deformity and disfigurement and MK10,000,000 loss of earning capacity. It is Counsel for the claimant's submission that the claimant be compensated the sum ofMK55,000,000.00 damages for pain and suffering, MK15,000,000.00 for loss of amenities of life and MK 10,000,000.00 disfigurement taking into consideration that the kwacha has lost value since the above awards were made. Defendant's case on general damages it is submitted on behalf of the defendant that the court should treat the head of "pain and Firstly, suffering" and "loss of amenities oflife" as one. It is contended that the learned Judge did not split "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities of life" and that his is that this be assessed as one head. They submit that the attempt by the claimant to split the award should be ignored as it is not supported by the order of the learned Judge. They further submit that the combination of "pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life" as done by the learned Judge is in keeping with the submission of learned authors in McGregor on Damages 17" Edition who argue that a single assessment is in practice made for these elements (see para 3-004). They argue that the claimant did not prove loss of amenities of life but still invite the court to have recourse to the following cases: © * Pome Piason v Williams and Company Personal Injury Cause No. 347 of 2019 in which the claimant was awarded the sum of MK8,000,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life arising from amputation of an arm. The award was made on gad April, 2020. Symon Venacio v Central East African Railways Ltd Personal Injury Cause No. 792 of2013 in which the claimant was awarded the sum of MK13,000,000 being damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life for amputated left leg through the knee and open fracture on tibia of the other leg. This award was made on 27" September, 2018. Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 6 ES a e Chidule v Medi (1993) MSCA Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1993 (unreported), the claimant suffered injury to nerves that left the claimant in avid pain long after the accident. He was paralysed in the upper body, He was permanently impaired and greatly disabled. On 15" April, 1994, the Supreme Court awarded the claimant the sum of NMMK 15,000.00. « George Sakonda v SR Nicholas Ltd High Court, Principal Registry, Civil Cause 67 of 2013 (unreported), in which the claimant suffered paraplegia (paralysis) following fracture ofspine (12) and other injuries. He lost permanent and complete control of lower limbs and could not stool, incapacity. He was awarded the sum of urinate or walk. He suffered 100% permanent MK.1,800,000.00 as damages for pain and suffering. The award was made on 26" September, 2014. It is the defendant's submission that the Chidule v Medi and George Sakonda SR Nicholas cases were more serious than the claimant's injuries as they involved complete paralysis of the lower body. They point out that plaintiffs in those cases completely lost control and use of their limbs and left the claimant(s) in avid pain long after the accident. They submit that the claimant herein has one lower limb remaining. It is suggested on behalf ofthe defendants that a sum of MK8,000,000.00 would be reasonable award for pain and suffering in the present case. Court's determination on general damages I thought I should begin by addressing issues raised by the defendants through In making assessment, their legal representative. Firstly, the defendants contend that damages for pain and suffering and damages for loss of amenities of life should not be split as purported by Counsel representing the claimant in his submissions. They argue that the Judge in his judgment did not split the two as such the court on assessment should follow the same. They buttress their position by pointing out that this is in keeping with the submission of learned authors in McGregor on Damages 17" Edition who argue that a single assessment is in practice made for these elements (see para 3-004). This court does not have problems combining the two heads of damages. In fact, this court has done so in several other cases in line with the submissions that it has received in a particular case. Howevet, { believe it is not correct to argue that the Judge did not split the two heads as such the assessing court should not split the two and that the two in fact should go together. The position as adumbrated by the learned authors in McGregor on Damages, notwithstanding, we ought to bear in mind that we have a Supreme Court decision on this regard more or less settling the law on this issue. In the case of City of Blantyre v Sagawa [1993] 16(1) MLR 67 (SCA) Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 7 the Justices of Appeal citing with approval the observation by the author of Kemp and Kemp, Volume II, at paragraph 1007 stated as follows: Appreciatedly, as a matter of practice, the courts have always proceeded to treat pain and suffering and loss of amenities as one head. This, in our view, is rather unfortunate, because the three are distinct heads of damage. Although these are lumped together under compendious pain and suffering and loss of amenities, they have different elements. {n essence, the court can make a lumpsum award or give individual awards to both heads. What seems to be of paramount importance on my part is that the court must establish whether elements of both heads have been established in making its award. In fact, the Justices of Appeal went further in the case of City of Blantyre v Sagawa to state that although it is the practice to lump the three heads together in awarding injuries, the court does look at each one of them before coming to a final figure. damages for personal Observably, the order by the Judge also combines loss of earnings and disfigurement. Going by Counsei for defendant's contention it would mean assessing the two together which I believe would not be ideal considering they have different elements. That said, in making assessment, I consider that the claimant sustained a crushed right foot which led to amputation of the right leg below the knee, fracture of the clavicle, degloving wound exposing the It is clear to me that the accident exposed the claimant to metatarsals and tendons and painful chest. excruciating pain. It is the kind of injury which 1 find any attempts to downplay the extent of the pain suffered by the claimant quite unfortunate. The leg was crashed and the medical personnel felt the only It only shows that the claimant suffered tnjury during the occurrence of the accident and also through the surgical operations that he went through in the process of amputation and way out was amputation. not to mention during recuperation. On the other hand, obvious though tt may seem that the injuries must have caused substantial deprivation of enjoyment of amenities of life, the evidence adduced for the claimant does not present how the injuries have affected the claimant on thts regard. | believe it is not for the court to speculate because the duty to prove the said damages lies squarely on the claimant being the person asserting in an exercise like the one herein. On disfigurement, the claimant laments of permanent loss of a limb. The court had an opportunity -to in court during assessment of damages appreciate the present physica! condition of the claimant proceedings. Evidently, the claimant has developed a limited ability to traverse physical barriers such as stairs or uneven surfaces. Notably, the claimant was 36 years old at the time of the injury. I daresay, he is Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 8 in the prime of his life and yet he thus cannot participate in the previous past hobbies nor will he be able to participate in a number of occupations which earned him a living like farming and piece works. Every I believe it is in view of such challenges that Justice movement he executes is fraught with difficulties. Potani (as he was then) in the case of James Chaika NICO General Insurance Company Ltd Civil Cause No. 909 stated that disfigurement is not a matter to be taken lightly and casually as it is something that one has to permanently live with. Be that as it may, having taken into consideration the injuries sustained and with guidance from the cited comparable case authorities, K15,000,000.00 for loss of amenities of life and K10,000,000,.00 for disfigurement proposed by the the K55,000,000.00 for pain and suffering, strongly believe that Claimant is way too high and awarding such would be awarding the claimant with more than he actually lost and this will be unfair to the defendant and again contrary to the principle of restitutio intergrum. On the other hand, K8,000,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life and K2,000,000.00 for damages for disfigurement as counter-proposed by the defendant is on the lower side. 1 am of the view that K25,000,0600.00 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life and K8,000,000.00 for disfigurement would adequately compensate the claimant. He is so awarded. Loss of earning capacity The claimant is also claiming loss of earning capacity. The same is calculated based on the annual figure and taking into account the age of the claimant and his working life span. It also takes into account the usual working contingencies and also taxation. Courts also assess the prospect of losing employment or reduced earnings in future - Tembo vy. City of Blantyre Civil Cause Number 1355 of 1994, High Court Principal Registry (unreported). Justice Mwaungulu, as he was a judge of the High Court then, case Sakonda v. S. R. Nicholas Ltd, Civil Appeal Cause No. 67 of 2013, High Court Principal Registry (Unreported) suggests that for loss of income, the real calculable for purposes of the award of damages, whilst a court can make an award for loss of earning loss must be ascertainable and hence in the capacity where the loss is not ascertainable. In this case, there is no doubt that the claimant can no longer earn his pre-accident rate of earnings. He can no longer work as labourer because he has one leg. Understandably, tn my opinion, the Claimant does not have receipts of piece works he used to do. It is submitted on his behalf that he is illiterate and does not know how to read or write perhaps as a way showing that he would not appreciate the need to obtain the same upon being engaged in a piece work. However, to be realistic how many casual labourers are issue or are issued upon doing piece works. In view of the applicable formula, it is submitted for the Manuel Witness v john Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 9 claimant that life expectancy in Malawi is at 62 years (see https://www.who.int/countries/mwi/en/). Considering that the claimant was 42 years at the time of the accident, Counsel for the claimant calls upon the court to use 20 years as the multiplier. Further to that, it is submitted on behalf of the claimant that the Claimant does not have proof of how much he was earning in piece works as such Counsel proposes the Minimum Wage of MK 38,000.00 per month for domestic servants be adopted. Based on the foregoing, Counsel suggests that damages for loss ofearning capacity will work out as follows: MK 38,000.00 x20x12= MK 9,120,000.00. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the award according to the judginent is that of loss of earning capacity. They argue that the claimant has not adduced any evidence to prove that he was earning any money. Counsel for the defendants is of the view that if we are to use the multiplier and multiplicand formula the bench mark for figuring out loss of earning capacity cannot be age of life expectancy as suggested by the claimant. He argues that people do not work up to age of life expectancy but up to retirement age. Other than that, Counsel for the claimant suggests that the court has to consider other factors such as the fact that claimant would be receiving a lump sum and not periodic payment, contingencies of life; (iti) taxation;(iv) fact that the lump sum would be invested. etc. Therefore, the projected figure would be reduced by the multiplier after taking into account these factors. st Counsel representing the defendants also contends that is attempting to use current minimum wage for house workers which came into force on January, 2021 through the Employment (Minimum Wages) (Amendment) Order, 2020. He argues that the law does not apply retrospectively as such he suggests that the applicable minimum monthly wage be as at the date of accident which was MK25,012.00. lastly, in the light of the case of Alefa Mkwate v IKunje Suwedi and Prime Insurance Company Ltd (supra) he proposes a multiplier of 5 years be used in this case. Based on the foregoing, Counsel suggests that damages for loss of earning capacity will work out as follows: 12,012.00 x 12 x 5 = K720,720.00 Having seen the submissions by the parties, wish to agree with Counsel for the defendants on the approach with regard to the multiplier. The same cannot be based on life expectancy but the time the claimant who still be productive in as far as earning is concerned. He was 42 years old at the time of the accident. He could have worked way up to his 60s. I take it he still had about 20 years farming and doing deduct 5 years to cater for eventuatities of life that may have reduced his capacity to his piece works. earn and also mindful of the fact that it will be a one time payment which may be invested. On the part of earnings, it is clear that the claimant's earnings could not be ascertained. In the circumstances, the court ought to use the minimum wage. Observably, Counsel for the defendants is ofthe view that the applicable minimum monthly wage be as at the date of accident which was MK25,012.00 on the basis that the law Manuel Witness v John Dick &2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 10 I am failing to appreciate the basis for the proposition can not be applied retrospectively. However, advanced by Counsel for the defendants. The claim comes as a result of the new circumstances created by the injury covering the present and the future. I see no reason why therefore we should revert to the date the accident took place in the circumstances. The least the court can do is adopt the present minimum wage. [ shall calculate loss of earnings as follows: MK 38,000.00 x15x12= MK6,840,000.00 Policy Limit Lastly, the defendants submit that the evidence adduced by the 3" defendant proves that the limit of damages it can pay in terms of the policy it had with the 1% and 2"4 defendants is MK5,000,000.00 inclusive of party and party costs. They seek to rely on the judgment by Honourable Justice Tembo in Andson Kabofolo and others v Chifundo Chirwa, Real Insurance Company Ltd and Enock Likanga Chirwa t/a Likanga Transport Personal Injury 780 of2015. They argue that the case is binding on this court. Counsel representing the claimant vehemently opposes the position taken by the defendants. He argues that costs are in the discretion of the Court and that party and party costs are not part of the Policy limit. He invites the court to consider that the Kabotolo case has been superseded by the case of Shira Fombe vs General Alliance Insurance Limited, Personal Injury Cause Number 692 of2019 in which Justice N'riva ruled that costs are in the discretion of the Court and an Insurance Company cannot restrict itself to the amount of costs tt can pay in a proceeding. In view of the diametrically opposed positions taken by the High Court, I believe this court has been left with a choice as to which position it can follow. Firstly, the 3"! defendant has been sued by virtue of the insurance contract it entered with the 2" defendant. It follows, in my view, that what exactly is covered under the contract of insurance must be provided for under the insurance policy itself. Essentially, a policy may provide that party and party costs are inclusive or in addition to the limit of indemnity just as most of these policies specifically provide for bodily harm and death as well as damage to property. This means that, subject to the policy wording, party and party costs incurred by the insured will or will not erode the policy limit. In this case, it is worth noting that the alleged restriction of liability for party and party costs to the amount of the policy limit is not mentioned anywhere in the policy. Even if that were not the case, I agree with Counsel circumstances of this case. The parties have been sued jointly and severally. Thus, the claimant is at liberty to claim the full vatue of the judgment or costs from any one of them. Order 31 rule 1(2) of the Courts (High Court)(Civil Procedure) Rules provides that a party to a proceeding shall not be entitled to recover costs of the proceeding from any other party to the Proceeding except under an order of the Court. By and large, I see no merit in the contention by the defendants. the 310 defendant cannot throw a blanket restriction in for the claimant that Manuel Witness v John Dick & 2 Others Personal Injury Cause Number 376 of2018 Page 11 Conclusion ---+-In-summary, the claimant is awarded as follows: e Damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life e Damages for disfigurement e Damages for loss of earning capacity K25,000,000.00 - K8,000,000.00 - K6,840,000.00 In total, the claimant is awarded K39,840,000.00. The claimant is further awarded costs for the assessment of damages proceedings to be taxed if not agreed by the parties. MADE IN CHAMBERS THIS DAY OF MAY, 2021 WYSON C KHATA ASSISTA ISTRAR Manuel Witness v john Dick & 2 Others Perso na Injury Cause Number 376 of 2018 Page 12 PEESTRESS