Sanga v. Sanga, Civ. Case 48-D-67, 31/10/67, Biron J.

Sanga v. Sanga, Civ. Case 48-D-67, 31/10/67, Biron J.

Plaintiff brought a claim for damages arising out of the crash of defendant’s motor car, in which plaintiff was traveling on the road from Iringa to Njombe. Plaintiff was about 28 years old, educated to standard ten and though at the time unemployed, had last been employed at Shs. 1,800/- per month. He testified that he was going abroad to take a university degree, but there was evidence to indicate that he was proceeding to Njombe to open a branch of his brother’s business. Liability for the driver’s negligence was admitted and the only issues before the court concerned damages. Plaintiff sought to recover special damages for the loss of cash and personal effects which were apparently stolen as he lay unconscious immediately after the accident. He also sought general damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of earning capacity.

            Held: (1) Plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the cash and personal effect stolen from him. The court said “In my judgment, bearing in mind the state of the roads in Tanzania, the volume of traffic on them, and the lonely tracts of country through which they run, damage this instant case, is not too remote to be claimed in negligence.” (2) As to the assessment of general damages, the court said “It is, to my mind, next to, if not altogether, impossible to establish to the degree of certainty I would wish, the actual injuries and damage the plaintiff has sustained, or is likely to sustain should his condition deteriorate …. All I can hope to achieve is to arrive at a reasonable approximation as to the quantum of damages the plaintiff is entitled to.” The court then assessed the mass of medical testimony and concluded that as a result mainly of a brain injury plaintiff had suffered fifty per cent permanent incapacity in relation to future earnings, plus considerable pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The court found it “well nigh impossible to determine with any degree of certainty any precise figure to which the plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity can be related.” The court then stated “I do not propose to make assessments or estimates of damage under specific heads, but to attempt to assess in a single figure the comprehensive quantum of compensation. (Citing Waldon v. The War Office (1956) 1 All E.R. 108). “(T)here is no case to the point in this part of the World, which could be of any guidance to the court in assessing the quantum of damages. In fact ….. no two cases are alike. Learned counsel have each, however, cited English cases …. As being analogous … (A)nalogous cases re certainly

Of assistance to a Court in trying to arrive at what may be considered a reasonable assessment in compensation … Although some guidance may be obtained from analogous cases, no real standard can be derived from such cases, let alone a yardstick by which to measure damages….. However, cases are of assistance in that they give some indication as to what is considered reasonable to award as compensation, which, as constantly reiterated, does not mean translating into shillings and pence, or cents, the injuries, that is the physical damage, loss, and pair and suffering etc. sustained by the plaintiff, but a determination as to what is reasonable compensation for such injuries.” On the basis of plaintiff’s injuries, the most serious being traumatic epilepsy, impairment of vision and the use of right arm, the likely loss of future earnings and amenities, the court awarded plaintiff Shs. 100,000/-.