David Gwalisile & Another vs Jerry Davis Matola (DC Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2410 (31 July 1998)

I

., I
· ,,
MOSHI, ,J;.:
-- - ·-
IN 'I'HE HIGH COURr OF T l.NZAIHA
AT MB1YA
ORIGINAL JURISBICrION
(Mbeya Rogistry)
(DC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 1997
(From Nb0;ya D/Court Civ:i_l Case Noo24/96)

1. DAVID GWALISILE .)
2. U.S~-IIRLIA WA WAFUGAJI ) •••-G•••eot TUlGT{U ) VERSUS JERRY DAVIS MATOLA I , . •o•••••o•••••o••o••e•o•••• JUDGMENT APPELLANTS RESPONDENT The suit between the parties before the Resident Magistrate's Court of Mbeya was founded upon a road accident which involved a motor vehicle ovm•3d and driven by the respondent, and a motor vehicle owned by the second appellc::nt and driven by their. driver, th,3 first appellanto The N2-tional Insur:mce Corporation (T) Limited, \·tho did not appeal, The suit was rather involved. It was for, among oth0r claim3: sDecial .J. j d-:1.mages for loss of e2.r11::.ngs. (1::) T 9 ns.4,785,00Q/=·sp0c:i.e,l dq.ma.gesf for cost of rep::1ir. (c) G,3n8ral damages for unspecified r,mount. The res:pon,J011t, Jer::7 Do.vis M.J.tola., wp.5 ?,dvocated for at thE: trial by Mr. Ivlwa.ngole, lean1ed advocate, while the first and second appellants, David s/o Gw:::J.i.silu cmd Ushiri!.o. wa \fa:fugaji Tukuyu (UWATU), werJ represe:it0d by lfro Mkumbe, learned advocat·e• The third defendant was r0pre;3ented at the trie.l by Mr. Kapinga and Mro Naali, learned advoc.:1-ces. In this .:-..pp0&l, )fro Mkumbe, again, represented the first ... ; and. second appellants, whilst the respondent was represented py Mr. Mushokorwa, lean1ed acivocat-3. · The case for the resr·ondent was that in the, morning of 4.5.95 at 9o00 AM he. was driving his motor vehicle Rego No.· TZA.· 7666 make T-,yota Dyna Pick-Up along Tukuyu/Kyela road. The first appellant was behind him driving his employe;r- 1 s motor v:::l.liclc Rego No. TZF 3128 make Toyota DCM Pick-Up. They came to Nak.andana area. There was a bendo ThG first appellant de•ided to overtake. But there was an on-coming motor vehicle ahead. He tried to abort the overtaking by retreating so as not to •ollici.e with th;;i oncoming motor vehicl"'~ i3ut l",is v0hiclc knocked th;'.:.:: oi t:.w rssnondent ,-11ic::I, iri coi1::;;:;q_uvnce, oY.:rturned.. 'l'h0 filst '=-¾l"\•-;,-., ........... ' 1,,Jl. , ~ ·•'t ❖'"---- .·.:f,!.",1s,v,'!",•>'•IO><•llliit--· t ... ,; ... , .. ;

2 appellant did not stop. ne drove awa">J. The respondent went to Tukuyu Police Station anc~ reported the.: accident. The accident was witness"d by a nei;3hbour of ths respondent, Joseph s/o Kibona Piv.4; \ ✓ ho happened to te pass:!.,.t at t~,c scene. He said the first 0-1-)pellant drove close to hi:;~ and th~.t he :3 aw him ciriving. There was a b0nd and the :irst appell2.nt 's tnotor· VE:£1.ich, ·:w.,s overtaking that ·o.r~.ve;.1 by the n::spond1..,i1t. Jut there wa.s a.rt on-corr.ing ;-no·to1' vehicle ahead~ So tho first .3.ppellant I s vehicle retrqated o.nd k:tJ.ock0d. 2-t the respond,;..-nt 's vehicle which overt1,,rned. The first appellant drove on without stopping, c'.Dd the res~·,ondent v1ent to repo1t the 2..cciclent at Tukuyu police sttiono ae said frthr tht the rsaondent ~lso ent by the ne.m8 Joel Mv1e.sambili. Consequent upon. -::he:· :-eport ma.co by th.::: responclo 0 :/: at Tukuyu police station, two uniformed. traffic polic,:: officet.s WG!lt to Makanda.na village that s:;1.mc da· and made :so:;;e inquj_rio;.3, ::i.l:out the accident. 'i'hey asked of it from one of the i,3ll l(;ad0::.s in the villace, Andr81:1 Mwankug", DW.4, who said he had not heard of it. DWo4 told thr.; policemen ·chat not all haprcnings at th.s- village were reportr::d to h_im., '.l'he i:)olicc (OCS )' duly filled Police Form 90 (Ext.P1) givin£; pe.rtic1:.L:.rs of the accident. On 6.50 95 the responds-r:t vs venicle waa inspected by- the Traffic Inspector and Examining Offic8r fo:- Vibeyo. Region, Insfector O.J. Sanga11.a,_ who duly filled c>. Vc11icle lnspe:c·t:ion Report (Ext. p3). The ve!:iicle did not have mechanical ci.:::Zects or damage befo1'e the accident. ·But it was extensivdy dan!e.:3:ed in tht..: accident. As per Ext. P.1 the vehicle was I knock.ed cff -;;118 road, hit n r,)ck ( mwamba.), and overturn,ed. ·Accident dame..ges included dented bumper·, dented front show, dented cabin, broken site mirrors, damaged gear selector? bent top axle, broken hee.dlp.mps, broken front indicators, broken front pa'.rking lights, dented front muc.guc:>rd.s, bent steering rod, bent pro;pell1:::ir shaft, and bent chassis. On 29 • .5.95 at 9.30 Al\1 the first appellant surrendered himself e,t 'l'ukuyu police station. The OC.-CID, ASP. Harun&. Tiba., ·he.nded him over to i,f"f'.l+,")6 S/Sgt. Venerandah PW.2. He told Fd.2 that h0 had caused an accident earlier in that month at Makandana area while driving the ; relevant motor vehicle of the second appellant. He told PVlo2 that· he he.ct been negligent and carGless in tha.t he attempted to overtnke a motor vehicle whilo there was an on.:.coming motor vehicle. PV/2 thus took his st-.::-.ter,,ont and issued a trc:.ffic notification in which she booked him for c2,reless driving and fined him Shs.10,000/=. The next decy, on 30.5.95, thG ±'fr-st appe].lant took the notific€l.tion to a cashier at Tul::.uyu 6.stric-: coi;rt 1 Mterni Mwankusy0 PW.3, 2nd p2.id the fine. PW.3 ...

• 3 Officer· Incharge of the 'i'raffic Division issued D finn.l :::-eport of the accident (Ext.P2) in !hich &11 the.se m2.tters wen1; reflectcc. Both motor vehicles \vGre insurec: b:y the third defendant. That of ·the· rcs-pondent ce:.n"iGd i.'. ;J'::1irc: P2-rty Insur.:.mce Policy, whilst ·that of th8 second 2.pp0lla..'1t wc.s c0Gprd1en.sively in.sured. On. 8.5.95 a i-'lotor Claim :Form w:-:-s fill2(. by the- sec-):-:ld o.:::1pellant ,vh0, , h,)wever, r:"enied to hEtVG done S'.)o The :fo::. 0 m was :ce:ceived in cou::."t for identif" .. co.tion purposes. H01.·1cver, a commi::tec nembe:,r of the second appellant, Dr. Alwisye M.wo.isele DW.2, said the third dGfendo.nt notified t}1em about the respondent's claim. But thoy d.@ied that thoir motor vehicle wns involved in the accident. D~2 also s::J.id th<-',t th0~ 1 ha.d d:i.s;-,;issed one of their top officials, Ngala 1·. Watson, 0,1 Gccou.nt of being found out assisting thC; respondent in this rno.tter. Ari assessor of th8 thj_:rr] c-:.efendant inspected the respondent vs vehiclo 1:,t Mwok;ya.mb:ild ,St,:-.r Auto Garage and they assassed the cost of repair at ·.rsr.i.S4782,ooo/= (Ext P6). It was on 15.6.98. RepGtir -vior:k was completed on 31. 8. 95v On thet day 9 I,nspector O.J. Sang2..na re-inspectBd end passed th(:; ve;r1icl0 (Ext P5). The respondent claimed th3.t his vehicle wns cormnercinl and that it had bc'3n off the road. for 119 days in a.11 -md thc:-,t his daily earning -v1ere Shs.15,000/= thus making total loss of earning·s of 3hs .1 , 785, 000/=,• 1-b also claimed to hnve suffered inconvenif..:nc0s c:mC: urnbarrassments on ::-.cc.Junt of his vehicle being off the roo.d. :-hmce tho ::;uit. ', The first .J.nd second 2.r,pGllants, fo:."' th·eir pc::rt, deni"'c.l th.::.t their vehicle: wns involved in the accident. '.I'hat wa.s th8ir only defenc0. The first appr:llm1t W,':'..s it,s only drivur. :Jn. th2 cto.y •)i' the e.ccidcnt, hO\vevGr, the .seco110. apr,c:Ilant admitted thc.t the first 2.:ppella.11t \·1c..s driving tl10 v.,:i:1.1-le fa the:: course of l1is er0.ployment. Th(;: first appellant left Tukuyu f,)l" 1',bcya clt 8030 AM. Th<:: trip w::.;.1:. c:cut1orized. by DW2. There h2,6. been no rncchEmic.::·.l brenk-c1.-.:Jwn or any ')ther Jroblem on the way. Th6 first app11:a11t, .1overtivless, D.rrivec]. at L::;e:;2. nt 2.30 p.mo He 18ft Mb,y:·. :·y:- '1:uku,yu ,:\t 6.50 i:,.m. a"'lc''. arrivec:1. 2,t Tukuyu :J.t 8.,00 p.r.1. He had tol-cen :;mD.shuJ.u .. to l':bey 'l ·nnc: r.::td yicked. up :::Jther luggages on the way. H~) recorded v1hc..t h0 did •:::Jn :h,?..t day on 2. piece, Jf paper he called a log book (E.,""'Ct D1). He deni2) t::> hove tci.::"'n tln '.I:'uirn.yu/Kyelo. roD.d. It wo.s cor:1n1on r,round, h,Jwever 9 th::•.t tho Tukuyu/KbeyA. r-Jc?.ci clist,:L.11ce WD.S ab)ut two-hours drivo. issues Four · - 1 . were fro.r:1t.:c~ rcld o.grec:~: upc)n of the hec:Lri11g of the cas eo '.'!:hey were: ( i) ',fo,~ther the road e.ccident really occurred. ( i:.) 'Jhethcr the first defendant (ap:,i,eEc,.nt) rm 1 --- ·· I'· 0 0 0 ,: :0 •• , 'i, t 'f; ,..

i,i,kt! .. • 'J ... ij 4 (iii) i;,!he:th,::;r thu vehicl(.; involvao. in the accident \f[;.S d 1 .J.ly insurGc. .::i.t i:ho occunmce of the ·:ccident ( if o..n:.7) <» (iv) i"fr1.2ther or r.:ot the:- plaint i:ff ( r,Jspond.0::-~ t) sustt;..ir1Gd 1 /suff,:;rt:d iJl'lY los.::J~ • The:: trial court e.n,3we::ed oJ.l tl1,~ · f-JL::· issu0:s i:μ th0 -ffi.rmtive .::.:nd, i:n conGequ_c;;'!C•.:, €;::.·ereC. judgment fJT tl'1c- rup:onCent t: s j_Jr2.ycd in t • .., ,. J ,. .;. .... • ,:;he pL:nnt. .I:' or the --;rc.y 0r er· gen(;;re:.l d::,mc,,ges a: .sum 01· ,:>i:,s. 1c0, OOQ/= W2u5 a.ws.rdedo The first ,md cGcond nppGl}arits f, 1 1t .:,.ggricved., hence this EJ.PP,•.,.:1.lo Hr o t·irnmbo ro.is "'d in his memor.-:.ndurn of o.ppeaJ. 1 o.nC. b..::f ore me, the question of the the side of th:_: own8rship {l ~~· '-' r0s·oo1.dc.:r1t" ::-,::.: I:iro v·c}1icl0 involved in th2 accidont on :-l' .. , I·!.US:.1.0r(OY'WC. I r<c:sist,-;ci th~. t T!!Q'f.,Tf'; on the ground thc-.t the i3EU0 was n,J·c i 0 :.:,is0d. c-,t thiJ trt:-,1 and it co•.tld not, ; thE:refore, r,r·opc,rl;:r b•c. !'c:.i:,,ed h,;r-;::. Mr-. l"I 1 .i.shokorwe. cited. '.lnd r;;;li0d upon tl12 d0c:i.sion bf th;;: Co1rct of App0·::.:.l L.YJ. Fre.r!...l.< !-i~.ref.1.lle v IJ Pc..ul l\iuke. .. ""' ·• ••" .-. _ ............. - .. ,.,. . .,.. __ .....' . .,..,,....,_.....A"-••- (1982) 'i'LR :52, E-rid th,.;; o.r:,c:i_sion o:.: thit3 C0 1 rct in b::::.lifr.m Vo Kichw::;:. (1980) I ..,..,.,,.,.-•-""-"" ___ ..,.,.-.....,., TLR 309. I would, with ::. 0 es:pect~ ,.1gree witi1 I".!r. Hwqokon:a. 1 .'.. 1 h8 qu8stion of I 0 1 .--1nersT.:.ip \•/DJS not oric of the; ics-i..-;.cs fr·: .. :!1e,l or :-!. .. aist.:.d -:..1.t ·the tri.a.lo C['.SOf; must f)•?; Jcid.1::;c.:. on the issues on tlE r.Jcord, '.".'.i1d 1it is desired to rai,s<.: other i.:::sues t:!e·; ;-,ius·c be .,::i_o..ced on tho' record b•r c.mcndment., ~ r , I U The rationD.lf.: f::.ir this is h-.Lt issues 2.riso £:ro,!i, o.nd ar8 founded upon, plea.dines, ,D.d foe, o'cjc,ct of pleadings is to secure th-:::,t Joth parties shs.11 kn,Jw whe:c cU'(:; t1;0 :)oints in issuo b.,twE"!en th0,: 1 1 ao that 8::i.ch I ' ·•· 11 . "' . . ~ ' 1 ' 1 . ' t d h" may nav"' :,:u 1.nrorr;1:.:t::.on or :::il2 case n0 11--:cs: .::o r.'.lee-- m1 prepare is evidence to sup;,ort his ovm c2.se or to meet thc;t of his ·, opponent - SEE (20.J2..t..t1: •. .E.0rI)'. G::m~~~Q;;!? A:i£._:r!'4J. ( 1956) .23 EA.CA 139. · It is ;:m 8.bsolut,9 necessit;y, therdore, tha th0 deterr.1inations L'1 a causG should be founded :pon .::1. cc..se to be :fpunded in the pleadings or involved in or consistent 1·1i th the cas0 the_reby rr:::1.deo There is more to this., On the basis of -r.e pleo.dings in this c:::..s, that question of ownership could not ho.v0 arisen in the first place. It was admitted. The respondc:nt allegod O\•mership of the motor. vehicle r0g. No. 7666 c.t p.stragrc,ph 3 of tl1e pL·.int and this was du;Ly admitted by both appellants at par,:\gr<'.1.ph 1 of thGir joint writtE.:n sb?,t°emcnt of ddenceo So the motor vehicl0 i:rn::ilv1::d in thE: cccid.ent v,a.s the property of tho respond,:;nt. Th2rE: was, C4S fu:: ly der:1onstr:.:.ted, sufficient Gviclence Ol?,- record, ornl c...s '"811 .Cj_f3 docu;-,1en-t~.i.rJ, -rhich 0stablished on fu,;;; bD.2.o.nc•i; of probabilities thc1.t te nccid.cnt had, in fct, occurred; 2-Dd th::.t it involved the raJ.cv2.n-t two ::1otor vehicles driv<.Jn ty th•<: res 1 Jond~nt etnci t!:H) first appell,mt. ,a, II o, ,., ' f1' ! .. £.

'I .. 5 It is inconceivable in all the ci:ccurnstn:1c~,:s thr:.t th(:; wr10l0 affair was the involvcmE:nt ,:>f the.: first appell2nt H2B not- ruled out. He was already on the roe.cl ciri v:i.ng the; n,l8v::.nt :no-:or v0hic=:_,::, t:1& second 3.ppellant at the. mc.te:rial tme of thD <'tccid0n:. J..' 1., ne leei.rned trinl Kyela road. btSforc proceedia;_; to hbey:::10 This would accc;_mt ?or the ,· . une.xpla.in0d inordinatG delay of four hours in :::..rriving 2.t Mbeyai; With respect to i•1r. i··ikymte, tk re,spond,"?nt WS\3 not, £md could not be cs t.::tbli!, h::.,cl in evidence., I·iis othc:·r n::,mc ':.Je.S ,Joel l\·;we,s:=1.rnbili., 'I'his r1as what his neighbour l:+14 told the.: tr::.:::.l court. E,ren D-12 'told th0 tria.l court th.at ,, ' " the respond2nt had on•e stood for o.n eloction 'of D, coun.cillor for Baga.moyo hjini ·,.;c.rd iL Tukuyu So Jerry Davis r\·1ntole. and (Joel t 1 1·iJ.3.S'M::·'!:Ji.li v:e:re bot!':. t11u nc1.r110 of th8 res];;ondcnt. 1 rhu 0vidr:r1cc 0ctC·.'.JJ.ish.0d +f:::d; .:t t.!1G tiffi;; o:f th8 c.ccident the . ' first _to'-l)peJ.l.nt ,.,12.s dr:LvL1 6 Li . .s Vl:d:.cJ.0 nc,,;lig0:1J:l;y ( .. rid. th1:tt the cause :for mec,su.::'.'i!lf ,·/t1,:,-t 2.J:,o,.m-1::s to 11egli 6 u1t cfrivj.ng It i;:. now well settled tL-::1.t tl:;1 te·-,:t in c5uci1 C3.BGs is rm ob.:.,-ctivE: ts:::s·c. If' on plain facts, as sho,m by the 0vid.unc<':l, t110 style of driving of the driver is such that any 1°c-· 0 .s:ino.'tl:: i:,ir.,rson in th2: 2.bs0ne of ;;u{y 0xpl,;.>.nution would say is neglig0nt d.rivj.nr, 5 then that dr:i.vini:; i:;; r,icgligent o In the _cresent c::,.se, ths:: 2.ccident occurred. .:,.t a b.::nd ( corn1=1r) which both the' respondent r:.nd the: fi:::-st rrppellant v1r,fr·l0; n,:;gotiRting. Eut inst02.d of r0clucir1,:: speec;. th-::, first r.,pJ)elant increased it in order to ov0rL1ke tht: res:·,ondent 1 s rnotor vehicl": ];ho fiTst 2.})Rellant was thus i~,1prudent ,·end ·reckJ.esso And more, tb0 fir 9 t appelle.nt decided to overtcl<e at a bend without first r..,::wing a proper loqk-out for- any on-coming motor vehicloG or cny otl:.(r obstacles along his paths In cons.squence, I am sf.ltir.fieci. 1 i.:,.s we.s th0 i:rinl court, tat any ree.son2.ble p·.:;rson would hold in th2 ci::'.'cumst,mces thJ.t tho styl,:) of driving :)f the first ; appellrmt ex,:otmted to negligent driving :J...."ld therefore_ liable in damages. The .,second arp,,llant wn:3 found liablt:: on the cioctrine of Vic2.rious LinbilHy o It is \·!ell .settle,~ le,w t~~D.t a· m,:i.ster in >.lic.ble even for acts whicn :he h:Js not c.uthorized provide(1' they are so connected with the e.c'cs which r10 h8.:3 c.l' •. ri::horizecl. that they r:i•:J:J rightly be reg3.rded as modes, .::.lthough irnpro~)er ,.1oc'.cs, of doing them - SIB Court of Appeal decision in L2.ch.::1me K2.sirnzini Cor-ooration Ltdo V. ;.:il-'-'-eli lf:bowe1, Civil ""---- ... ---·-·----------------·--· ---·-------- Appec.l N·::i. 1'i of 1984 (Arusha - unrepo:rtod)o On thJ oth•::ir h:md., if thG .. ·•· .. ,.

• ¥ 0 6 unauthorized ,me. ,<1rongful :J.ct of the servnnt is not conn.::c:ec: with th0 nuthori;.>,ed .--'.ct :,•s to b:.;, th0 modr;~ of do:i.nt it, but is ·Em indepondE:nt act, acting in he, cour'.3G 'Jf ::,is 0mploy::10nt, b,ut ;12..s g;on,;:, outsic:.12 ito In order to render tl'.c 0mployE,r lietble f;:,r t:1.0 employee 1 s .::i.ct, .,. . 1.t, lS In ,?.11 the circu::1St::-..i1ce3 o/ c:l.m 3E•.tisfied. the.t the. trial court had . properly invok0d ·-,_ncJ. applied th2 doctrine of Vicarious Linbility and thc,t tl1.,: 130CODO. c.r1CL.'. .. [,l'lt w:'.3 r:i.r.:;htly held liableo I•. sh,.,11 c:mclu6.e b;y .'.1::rving .,). look o.t the quc111 turn of darrm.ges in point of principle, thu governins purpose o:f d?,m.::t1;e,3 is to plsv::B ·s~:.,; inji.lreci :9r,:rty, the p;,. .rty. who has suffered a loss, in. th:J a;.:,,;;i-~ position, 2£ f0.r D.S rt:one;y c:J.J."ldc, ns if hfo :rights had court must reason.'.l.ble in settling th'" sum o:: rr:on-:.:; to :t<::: given :for rc,p£:.r,3.tion of dnmage.s you shoulc'i c-.s nei: :·:·ly as l)ossible get 1:,.-i:; tlwt SU?! o:f 1nou.3y hns b0en injur,:.d, or who ·,:l1icr1 rill p 1 ..r: tht: pa:::·ty who the lies s11t·f 8red, in ~ ~ se..?nc position ~ !:,.,::; wouhi L:::.v~ ·,)00n in if lie h.:-v:1. not in. all th-:.: circurnst-~.:.r1c0s figure whtch,it co:i1s:Lcl.0Jrs to be bee.ring of th .. : c:.'St=J, • .J in r:1iml that its duty in c. c i vi}. c.:-.sC:: is n-:-t ;'.) p1misb the wro:r..gd90r but to coi;1p0nsate the _victi,ilo It W'.n h'ilc. ·0:1 the Ccrnrt of App,-,;al for :22-Stern Africa in S ~.1.J_ t 3.Yl

for wi:iich co::npc-nsc.ti:m j_;3 rcco-vero.ble is th.:.t wLich o.risc,, nc;.turally e.nd in tht) usu.--:.J. cou::'.'sc of thin.:J'; fT:::\J t:,: d,dc-n(lc.mt 1 s r,cts., jJ_'.),,1c.:yer, court onl;: whc.: 0 0 s-:.ich lo-:1cr c-:iurt hes :1ct0d on .::i. wron;- princ :.pl0 or· has otherwise pl,~.inly 6 on0 wr01:go '1'!::te Privy Gounc.::i..l lo.ic:. dovr.1 this rule in

... 7 in dou½t~ of d,;J?J,'.",.ges be jUI"j' by a ;_judg8 or : - , the c:1.pp'cllc.t0 court is not iustified in subs ti tutinis :1 figure of its O\·m for ~ 2.wa.rciod · that l bdow simply b,_,c;:;.use it would hnve .:J.1:J:,".rded a J.ifferent figure if it ;_1ad tred the case . . 'in th0 first instc11c8. Even if i:h.e tribunal of fir.Jt inst::u.1ce wo.s o. judgG sitting alone; .i:E, l:±:_0_1": .!.£_2:fEGll::;:te .. 9f.!....~~~ .J?..J-.JL.J-' it __ must .. be .s1-.:.tisfi0d that eith';;_r:.lh2_t -~(t.2-E. 8,;SS8!3}+.. .. !h..-8!EE{;';.'='!.!,P.l1l_e __ ,a..,.CS.?..1 . .Y .. EP.?iple of ·lnw (ns by taking into account some irrelevant -·•,,-.,-- ... -- .... ------- ......., ... /4,,,... ___ ......... ~ ..... - ...... .,.' .-. ......... __,.,.. ., __ ,.. ____ ,,., ____ _ _ fo.ctor o le1wout ~ of, account s0;11e_re_kyo.nt .2!}_8), . or0ho,.[t f this'· _th2,t .,;;:'.;1_cnmt y,~D.rded .. is, so_inorc!i2:!ely lov1 or i11orc1.in2.tely high tnc.t .it !ili.IBt be o whally -···- --•--·---,-.,-..-.. .... ,-. ... - .... ,. ..... ---· .,. ... -· ..... -~.- ... ,r'LI. ___ .• .- ... .,, .. .. -1-- ... ~ In trlis C[U38l l have X:::) qu.::,rrel or qu!.'l.lms with the sums of .ShsoL+,782 1 000/= ancl ,3i1So120,000/= avnrded ,:\S sp.::cial and general damages ' rcsp0ctively. I am s::.tisfiecl t1rn.t thosu su.ms of mon0:y ·were, on th0. facts and :Ln h.v:; prop•::::·l:1 :.w,Ta..ad :md they at;:;, in cons0quence, left undisturbJc:.. Du; ti--,.c -1·,:::::.'c·. '.)f U10 s·,,.r:, of Shso1,785,ooo/= for loss of e2..rnings c2.lls .::·or intc,!'fen::.--!ce by thi,3 court. That sum of money was grrnted .:i;:.3 p.'nyec:.. B;_,t t1,·: ;rial coc"t h··.d left out of c.ccount some rel8vant factor. Th.:, trial court hD .. d. tclen fpr gr 0 11t0d, and. as3wncd, trnt the resron·:lei,.t I s rr,.::,tor '.r0hicl,:; v. 1 o;l1C::. i1;:::.vc be-cm on th,) rou.c: for all the 119 d.::,yso 'IhiG nost · certc.i.o.ly c::,ulci not hc.vc, been the c:::..se. The trial court f'ailu: to tE'1cs into 2.ccoUY"1t b::. 0 eo.kd0,,'Ds or ;:my ·ot::10r conceivable reasons for r,ot op0:;.ating. Th2 assumpti-.:m r.1-;1.d0 b, the trial court was in co:npletc dis1<:,gard to oth0r forces or ma.t;ters within anC:. beyond th1c) control of th;:; resrond-:::nt which could have tGk:e:1 th0 vehiclt:: off the road. However, the resp::md.ent' s motor vehicle wo.s commercil, and the fact :remD.ined th.1t thG resp8ndent ::1a.d lost o:;1e tJ'.:l.rning on account of the accident. I am therefore of the vie;tJ that th<-': respondent would be €.:nti tled under this h..,ad to nomina.l · d.D1i1[-_ges, th::i.t is to s,,y, d:unages not ·so much to compens2,tu th.::: respondent as to r,unish thE: t:1.pp0ll:mts. I think that Sb.s.1,785 1 000/= was on the high sido as nomin3.l damcigese T think a sum o.f 0 hs.1,200, 000/= wo1.1ld neet the justico of thG case, and I r0duc0 th,:.t award extent., accordingly. Th(:1 srppea.l is allowed. to that

. ' i 8 In the fin::.1 co,c,lysis, therefore, save for the reduction of the this f ¼$.!.!.B~ 31 July '