Nhuvya s/o Subajiwa v. Jackson s/o Chilewa, Civ. Case 32-DDM-72, 24/8/72.

 

Nhuvya s/o Subajiwa v. Jackson s/o Chilewa, Civ. Case 32-DDM-72, 24/8/72.

            MNZAVAS, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Dodoma Resident Magistrate’s Court in Civil Case No. 201 of 1971.

            The appellant (original defendant) was adjudged to pay a total of Shs. 1,150/= to the respondent (original plaintiff) as compensation for injuries he caused to him and consequent material loss the respondent suffered as a result of the injuries.

            Before this court the appellant admitted assaulting the respondent for which he was tried and convicted in Dodoma District Court Criminal Case No. 225 of 1971 and sentenced to Shs. 200/= fine or 4 months imprisonment in default.

            He, however, argued that the award of Shs. 1,150/= compensation to the respondent was excessive and prayed that the sum be reduced. In coming to his decision as to what amount of money should be awarded to the respondent the learned trial magistrate says in paragraph four of his judgment:- “The plaintiff, as the evidence shows, suffered material loss as well as serious personal injury as the result of the defendant’s attack on him.” The learned resident magistrate also described the injuries suffered by the plaintiff (present respondent) as “substantial”

            To satisfy itself as to the nature and extent of injuries inflicted on the respondent by the appellant this court had to call for the record in Dodoma Criminal Case No. 225 of 1971. The medical report which was produced before the lower court in connection with the above criminal case and admitted as exhibit ‘A’ shows that the respondent suffered compound fracture of the first metatarsal bone of his left little finger as well as a cut wound on the fore-head. The injuries are collectively put in the category of harm.

            This being the report of the doctor who examined the respondent soon after he was assaulted I fail to understand how the trial magistrate came to the bold conclusion that the respondent suffered serious personal injuries.

            There was no evidence to suggest, leave alone to show that the injuries suffered by the respondent would incapacitate him permanently and thereby reduce his earning power as a peasant. On the contrary, when the respondent was interrogated by this court he replied that he was now fully cured of his injuries. So much for the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the respondent.

            As for the material loss suffered by the respondent, the lower court found that as a result of the injuries the respondent was unable to cultivate his eight-acre shamba and as a result he was deprived of twelve up to eighteen bags of “harvest” that year. It was also found that the respondent was only able to cultivate 3¹/₂ acres of his shamba the following year.

            It would appear from the evidence that the respondent used to cultivate such crops as cassava, ground-nuts, millet and beans. The learned resident magistrate awarded Shs. 600/= to the respondent as damages resulting from his failure to cultivate his eight-acre shamba and Shs. 300/= damages in respect of the following year when the respondent cultivated only 3¹/₂ acres of his shamba.

            Both the evidence and the judgment do not give any clue as to how the above figures were arrived at. The judgment is silent as to what kind of crops the “12 to 15 bags of harvest” refers to. Whether the estimated bag of harvest were bags of millet or of ground-nuts or of beans or of cassava or of a collection of all these crops is, to say the least, beyond my comprehension.  

            And, even if, for the sake of argument the lower court had specified the bags to be of say ground-nuts or millet, it would still be impossible to say how the figures of Shs. 600/= and Shs. 300/= were arrived at as there would still remain the important question – What was the price of a bag of ground-nuts or of millet at the material time?

            In some cases it may be difficult to assess the amount of damages payable to a plaintiff but it is always important that the trial court assesses as best as it can what it considers to be an adequate recompense for the loss suffered by the plaintiff and the mode of assessment should form part of the record.

            There can be no doubt that the respondent’s failure to cultivate his shamba was caused by the appellant’s unsocial conduct. The only question to be finally decided is whether the consequent loss incurred by him as a direct result of his failure to cultivate his shamba qualifies for compensation. According to the famous decision in Hadley v. Baxendale (1954) 9 EXCH 341: “The only kind of damage for which compensation is recoverable is that which arises naturally and in the usual course of things from the defendant’s acts”. In my view when a peasant is incapacitated as result of an assault, the usual consequences are that he will be unable to cultivate his shamba and thereby suffer loss of crops which he would have harvested had he not been incapacitated by the assault.

            Pure logic may speak against such reasoning but practical commonsense demands that the respondent be compensated for what he has lost as a result of his failure to cultivate his shamba. His failure to do so was a direct result of the assault or him by the appellant.

            Taking into account the fact that the respondent’s shamba was of eight acres, I am of the view that the sum of Shs. 600/= and Shs. 300/= awarded as compensation for his failure to cultivate the shamba in the first year and cultivate only part of it in the following year was not excessive and was no more that should have been awarded if the learned resident magistrate had showed how he arrived at the figures.

            The amount of Shs. 150/= awarded as compensation for the injuries suffered by the respondent is in no way excessive.

            I would, however, like to draw to the attention of the trial magistrate that Shs. 1,150/= taken as the total of Shs. 600/= plus Shs. 300/= plus Shs. 150/= is clearly wrong. The total of the above figures appears to me to be Shs. 1,050/=only.

            The appellant is to pay Shs. 1,050/= only to the respondent as compensation. Save for the above variation this appeal fails. No order as to costs.