Abdulaziz Velji Ratansi v. Sheri Singh, Civ. Case 14-A-67, 27/9/68, Platt J.

Abdulaziz Velji Ratansi v. Sheri Singh, Civ. Case 14-A-67, 27/9/68, Platt J.

Plaintiff’s car, which he hired out, was virtually destroyed due to the negligence of the two defendants. The plaintiff’s car had recently been in another accident, damaging the car to the extent of Shs. 1,600/-, which the person hiring the car had paid. Plaintiff made a claim for damages under two heads; Shs. 14,000/- being the pre-accident value of the car, and Shs. 11,095/- being Shs. 35/- per day times 25 working days per month, for a little over one year, the profit plaintiff lost due to the destruction of his vehicle.

            Held: (1) The damages for destruction of the vehicle were Shs. 10,900/-, plus interest. The Shs. 14,000/- valuation not disputed, but from that figure was subtracted 1,600/- since the car was in a damaged state at the time of the accident in question, and Shs. 1,500/-, the salvage value of the car. (2) A claim for loss of profits was in principle justifiable, in addition to the loss of the car. [Citing Jones v. London Authority, Lloyds Rep. 489; Pick fords Ltd. V. Perma Products Ltd. (1947) 80 Li. L. R. 513]. In shipping cases, recovery of profits is permitted for the voyage she was undertaking at the time of the accident, plus that for other voyages she was under charter to perform. [Citing The Philadelphia (1917)]. The main dispute was not over the principle of recovery for lost profits being allowed, but for how long the period would run. Plaintiff argued that he had no duty to mitigate damages. (Citing Southern Highlands Tobacco Ltd. v. Mc Queen (1960) E. A. 490, 494, a case involving an employment contract.) Defendant replied that plaintiff was entitled to recover damages only over such period of time until he could reasonably have obtained another vehicle. [Citing The Liesbosch (1963) A.C. 489]. The measure of damages and the duty to minimize damages are two separate things. The aim is to put plaintiff, as far as possible, in as good a position as he was before the collision, the principle sometimes being referred to as restitutio in integrum. To do this it must be contemplated that plaintiff would replace the destroyed taxi. ”Therefore, the measure of his damage is the value of his vehicle and the loss of profits from the date of the accident to the date when a further similar vehicle could reasonably be acquired to replace the damaged vehicle.” Shs. 900/- was allowed for loss of profits, plus 7% interest, running from the date of the accident, on the value of the car (Shs. 10,900/-, but apparently not on the Shs. 900/- lost profits. (3) Plaintiff argued that he should be awarded costs since his

Claim succeeded on the main point he had to prove – defendant’s negligence – and a although he received less than he claimed, the part he lost on only entitled brief argument before the court. In short, he won on the substantive claim, though he was awarded less than he had requested. Defendant argued that as plaintiff had recovered only Shs. 11,800/- out of a claim of Shs. 25,095/-, plaintiff should not be allowed costs. As plaintiff was required to bring this law suit only because the two defendants could not decide how to apportion liability among themselves, and plaintiff had succeeded on the substantive issue under both heads of damage claimed, plaintiff was awarded costs.