IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
CIVIL
CAUSE NO. 3646 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
AND
PRIDE AFRICA……………………………………………………………DEFENDANT
Ziyendam’manja,
for the Plaintiff
This is
this court’s order on assessment of damages pursuant to a default judgment
entered in favour of the plaintiff dated 27th August, 2003. The judgment was entered in favour of the
plaintiff on her claim for damages for trespass to and conversion of her goods
as well as for loss of use thereof. The
plaintiff also claims costs of this action.
The
notice of hearing of this assessment was duly served on the defendants who
never appeared at the hearing. That
left the plaintiff’s evidence totally uncontrovereted.
The
plaintiff herein had been a beneficiary of the 1st defendant’s loan
scheme on several occasions. She had
success fully paid back the said loan.
And on the occasion in issue the plaintiff had been given a loan to the
tune of K30,000.00 in July, 2001. She
was to pay back this loan in 20 weekly installments after investing the loan
sum in a small business enterprise. The
plaintiff regularly paid her installments to the 1st defendant for
the whole of August, 2001. In September,
2001 she only managed to make one installment payment due to bad business. Then on 23rd September, 2001 she
went away to mark examinations at the Malawi National Examinations Board.
In her
absence the 1st defendant’s agents who are the other defendants
herein came to the plaintiff’s house and took her various household items. The plaintiff tendered in evidence a
schedule of items that had been taken away from her by the defendants. The item and cost are enumerated as follows:
Item Quantity
Cost Value
TV Screen
Black & White 1 MK9,468,00 9,468.00
TV Screen
Black & Cover
Coloured
glass 1 MK500.00 500.00
Dining
Table 1 MK1050.00
1050.00
Display
Cabinet 1 M12750.00
12750.00
Dinning
Chairs 4 MK450.00 1800.00
Coffee
Table 1 MK850.00 850.00
Sofa Set
Maroon 1 set MK250.00 250.00
Wall
Clock 1 MK650.00 650.00
Pedal
Stand Fam 16” 1 MK3900.00
3900.00
BMX
Bicycle Hero 16” 1 MK4995.00
4995.00
Ladies
Shoes 2 prs. MK550.00 1100.00
Double
Bed Blanket 1 MK4500.00
4500.00
Shovels 2 MK850.00 1700.00
New
Mattress 3”x ¾ 1 MK5850.00
5850.00
Umbrella 2 MK250.00 500.00
Ladies
Black bag 1 MK550.00 550.00
Suitcase 1 MK900.00 900.00
Bed
Sheets & Pillow Cases 4 MK550.00 2200.00
Table
Spoon big size 2 dozen
MK100.00 200.00
Table
spoon small 2
dozen MK50.00 100.00
Zitenje
Assorted colours 2 MK250.00 500.00
Digital
Wrist Watch 1 MK100.00 100.00
Small
calculator 3 MK185.00 555.00
Plastic
Bathing tab (large) 1 MK2200.00
2200.00
Nsaluza
m’mipando 2 sets MK2500.99 5000.00
Tea Cups
(smoky) 1 set MK260.00 260.00
Tea Cups
(Cream) 1 set MK280.00 280.00
Glass
Tumblers 3 sets
MK300.00 900.00
Glass
Plates 2 MK250.00 500.00
Clay
Plates (Imported) 2 MK270.00 540.00
Metal
Plates (1x6) 1 set MK660.00 660.00
Sugar
Bowl 1 MK150.00 150.00
Canon
Camera 1 MK8500.00
8500.00
Cofee
Mugs 3 MK80.00 240.00
Briefcase
1 MK550.00 550.00
Men’s
Trounses 8 pairs
MK350.00 2800.00
Double D1
Suit (Brown) 1 MK9500.00 9500.00
Men’s
shirt 11 MK295.00 3245.00
Plain
Jackets 1 MK900.00 900.00
Checks
Jacket 1 MK950.00 950.00
T/Shirt 1 MK250.00 250.00
Scumber
(Cream) 1 MK650.00 650.00
Scumber
(Black) 1 MK670.00 670.00
Socks
men’s 4
pairs MK85.00 340.00
Jersy
Men’s 1 MK390.00 390.00
Belt
Brown 1 MK190.00 190.00
Hanger
with assorted neck ties 1 set MK495.00 495.00
Ladies
Sweater (Yellow) 1 MK1500.00 1500.00
Ladies
Sweater (White) 1 MK1900.00 1900.00
Ladies
Assorted Blousers MK2995.00 2995.00
Ladies
Assorted Shirts MK3500.00 3500.00
Ladies
Assorted Dresses MK5950.00 5950.00
Ladies
Assorted Bras MK950.00 950.00
Grand
Totals MK111,923.00
`
The total value of the items is K111,923.00.
This court ordered the plaintiff to file submissions on the quantum of damages which were filed. This court is indebted to counsel for the plaintiff for her submissions and has taken them into consideration herein.
This
court notes that indeed the tort of conversion of and trespass to goods
overlap. And that the appropriate
remedy where goods are interfered with to such an extent that they are never
returned to the owner the appropriate remedy is in damages for conversion as
opposed to trespass to the said goods.
The
authors of Mc Gregor on Damages 14th Edition observe
at paragraph 1097 that the tort of trespass to goods straddles the boundaries
of loss by misappropriation and of loss by damage or destruction. And further that in the case of loss of
goods by misappropriation the measure of damages in trespass is in general the
same as in conversion.
This
court also notes that the normal measure of damages for conversion is the
market value of the goods converted at time of the defendants wrong. See Hall v. Barclay
[1937] 3 All ER 620. This is the prima
facie measure of damages. The best rule
that fully compensates the plaintiff is to award damages for conversion of the
goods based on the value of the goods at the date of assessment so as to cater
for any increase in the value of the goods between the date of the wrong and
the date of assessment. See Sachs
v. Milklos [1948] 2 K.B.
23. This court notes that the current
market values of the plaintiff’s goods have not been brought in evidence. The values of the items are those pegged at
the time of the wrong herein.
In the
circumstances this court shall award the plaintiff damages on the values she
presented before this court. The
plaintiff’s evidence on these values appeared to be credible.
In the absence of contrary evidence the sum of K120,423.00 is awarded to the plaintiff as damages for conversion of the goods herein.
As to the
issue of loss of use of goods. This
court notes that the loss of use was with respect to domestic goods as opposed
to commercial goods. The plaintiff has
been deprived of the said use since the date of the wrong viz September, 2001
to date.
This
court has to assess damages for loss of use with regard to each particular
case. In the instant case this court
awards the plaintiff the sum of K60,000.00 as damages for loss of use of her
assorted household items that has occasioned serious inconvenience to her life.
Costs of
this action are awarded to the plaintiff.
Made in
Chambers at Blantyre this January,
2004.