Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Grace Sunguma, the claimant, seeking damages from Benson Chandile (1st defendant) and Prime Insurance Company Limited (2nd defendant) for injuries sustained in a road accident. The injuries include a pubic bone fracture, haematoma on the left thigh, multiple bruises, and resulting scars. A default judgment against the defendants was issued on 2020-03-13. The claimant requested MK15,000,000 in aggregate damages but the court assessed the injuries as less severe than in the cited Mateyu v Hamdani case (2018-07-30), where pelvic fractures resulted in a MK6,880,000 award. Considering the claimant's ongoing pain and the lapse of time affecting currency value, the court awarded MK4,500,000 total damages (no separate disfigurement award). The ruling was made on 2020-05-05 by Assistant Registrar C.H. Msokera.
Issues
- The court assessed the quantum of damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement following a personal injury claim involving bruises, scars, and ongoing excruciating pain. The assessment considered the severity of the injuries and compared them to previous cases to determine a fair compensation amount.
- The court ruled that a medical report cannot be used as evidence unless the author testifies, citing the rule against hearsay. This affected the claimant's ability to prove certain injuries and influenced the damage assessment.
Holdings
- The court assessed the claimant's injuries as severe, based on her testimony of excruciating pain, observable bruises and scars, and inability to perform daily activities or engage in sexual intercourse. The judge acknowledged the injuries were not as severe as in referenced cases but still concluded they warranted significant compensation. The court combined disfigurement (scars) with pain and suffering in its assessment, citing Mwasinga v Stagecoach (Mal) Ltd [1993] 16(1) MLR 363, and awarded total damages of MK4,500,000. The defendants were ordered to bear all proceedings costs.
- The court determined that the claimant's medical report, authored by a medical practitioner, could not be relied upon as proof of the injuries it described because the claimant did not call the medical personnel to testify. The court emphasized that such documents, unless tendered by the author, cannot be used as evidence of their contents but only as proof of their existence, citing the rule against hearsay evidence established in Anita Nanchinga v Reunion Insurance Company Limited MSCA Civil Appeal Number 5 of 2016.
Remedies
- The court ordered that the defendants bear all costs of the proceedings.
- The claimant was awarded total damages of MK4,500,000.00 for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement (included under pain and suffering). This assessment was made on 2020-05-05 in Blantyre, considering the claimant's observable injuries and excruciating pain but excluding unverified medical reports.
Monetary Damages
4500000.00
Legal Principles
- In civil proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue. This principle was referenced in *Isaac Chiwale v Real Insurance Company Limited* (2012), where the claimant must substantiate their injuries through appropriate evidence.
- The court applied the principle that comparable injuries should result in comparable awards, as established in *Malamulo Hospital v Mangani* (1996). This underscores the importance of consistency in legal outcomes for similar cases.
- The court emphasized that documents like medical reports, unless tendered by their author, cannot be relied upon as proof of their contents but only as proof of their existence. This aligns with the rule against hearsay evidence, as demonstrated in *Anita Nanchinga v Reunion Insurance Company Limited* (2016).
Precedent Name
- Mwasinga v Stagecoach (Mal) Ltd
- Malamulo Hospital (The Registered Trustees) v Mangani
- Mtika v US Chagomerana t/a Trans Usher (Zebra Transport)
- Anita Nanchinga v Reunion Insurance Company Limited
- Mateyu v Hamdani and Another
Judge Name
C. H. Msokera
Passage Text
- I find the case of Mateyu v Hamdani and Another (Miscellaneous Case Number 109 of 2016) a good guide. In that case, the claimant had a pelvic fracture... He was awarded the sum of MK6 880 000.00 as total damages.
- The claimant testified to sustaining a fracture of the pubic bone, haematoma on the left thigh, and multiple bruises. She cited a medical report pegging her permanent incapacity at 20% and described pain during coital exercise with her husband.
- Given the nature of the injuries in the present action which are less severe than the ones in Mateyu but also not losing sight to the lapse of time and changing economic forces affecting the value of the Kwacha, I proceed to award the claimant total damages to the total sum of MK4 500 000.00.