COURT: SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM:
The Hon. Justice E Livesey Luke - Chief Justice
Hon. Justice C. A Harding JSC
Hon. Justice O. B. R Tejan JSC
Hon. Justice Awunor-Renner JSC
Hon. Justice M. E. A Cole JA
SC. Civ. App. No. 2/79
BETWEEN
IDRISSA CONTEH - APPELLANT
AND
ABDUL J. KAMARA - RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION
Berthan Macauley for the Appellant
J.H Smythe Q. C. with him A. E. Manley- Spaine for the Respondent
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 1980
FACTS:
The Appellant is a farmer residing at Malal Village in Tonkolili District. On the 13th June, 1975 while travelling as a passenger in a vehicle owned by the respondent, the Appellant sustained personal injuries as a result of the negligent driving of the vehicle of the Respondent’s servant or agent. In May 1976, the Appellant instituted proceedings in the High Court against the Respondent for damages for negligence. In due course the action came up for trial. Liability was not in issue. The only issue was the quantum of damages. The appellant gave evidence in support of his claim for both general and special damages. A surgeon was called up to lead evidence during the trial, and both parties were represented by counsel at the trial. The trial judge gave judgment on 24th November, 1977 awarding the appellant the sum of Le 9,000 as general damages and the sum of Le 2,067 as special damages.
The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal against the award. The Appeal was heard on the 8th June 1978 and judgment was delivered on the 9th February, 1979 allowing the appeal and reducing the general damages to Le 4,500 and wholly setting aside the award of special damages. It is against that judgment that the appellant has appealed.
ISSUES
The issues for determination before the Supreme Court were:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in reducing the general damages awarded
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in wholly disallowing the special damages award
FINDINGS
The Honourable Chief Justice referred to rule 9 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1974. He stressed that an appeal to the Court of Appeal is by way of re-hearing, and that an appeal against an award of damages is like appeals generally by way of rehearing, and that the Court of Appeal had the power to review the award. However, he noted that a well- established rule has been accepted over the years as governing the Appellate Court in the exercise of its power to review an award of damages by a judge sitting alone. The rule is that the Appellate Court will not interfere with an award of damages unless it is satisfied that the judge acted on a wrong principle of law or has misapprehended the facts or has made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages to which the claimant is entitled.
The rule was stated with much clarity by Greer L.J. in the English Court of Appeal in Flint v. Lovell (1935) 1 KB at p. 36:-
…in order to justify reversing the trial judge on the question of the amount of damages it will generally be necessary that this Court should be convinced either that the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law, or high or so very small as to make it, in the judgment of this court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.”
This position was further affirmed in very many cases viz: Owen v. Sykes (1936) 1 kb 192 at page 198; Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited (1942) A C. 601 at page 617; and as per Bankole Jones Ag CJ (as he then was) in Suleman Lasawarrack v. Raffa Brothers & The Northern Assurance Co Ltd. 1962 2 SLLR 196 at page 197.
ANALYSIS
In light of the findings, the Supreme Court considered the principles applicable in making an assessment of general damages in personal injury cases. The most important principle applicable is that general damages must be a fair and reasonable compensation for the damage suffered and that a perfect compensation is not possible or permissible. The judge’s duty is to satisfy himself that at the end of the day the total of the sums awarded under the various heads is fair and reasonable.
The learned Chief Justice bore in mind the quality of the evidence that was presented to him. The evidence was such that the appellant had sustained injuries as a result of the accident viz:
(i)Contusion of the chest wall and
(ii)Fracture of the right humerus complicated by involvement of radial waves.
The Appellant by reason of this tragic accident would not be able to use his wrist as a farmer to lift his cutlass and any other heavy object. The appellant prior to the accident earned Le 800 per annum from his farming. Since the accident he had not earned any income since then.
When the evidence was taken as a whole, the overall award of Le 9,000 as general damages formerly considered to be generous or high was deemed a fair and reasonable compensation to which the appellant is entitled.
For purposes of arriving at a fair and reasonable estimate certain aids of consideration have to be borne in mind. These considerations include: the bodily injury sustained, the pain and sufferings endured, past, present and future, injury to health, loss of amenities, loss of expectations of life and the present and future financial loss. In respect of these, the assessment of the general damages was not inordinately high rather it was fair and reasonable.
In regard the second issue of special damages, the Respondent did not serious contest the claim of special damages. What was an issue was the assessed general damages of the High Court, which the Respondent confined his submissions to. Also, in all the three grounds of Appeal relied upon by the present Respondent before the Court of Appeal there was no specific ground where the Respondent complained about the whole or any item awarded as special damages. The submissions of the present Respondent were more particularly germane to an attack on a general damages award than to a special damages award.
Order:
The Supreme Court had to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and ordered that the orders of the High Court be restored.
Written by: Khadija Kowa
EDITED BY: Frederick Ishmael Bockarie Esq.