Summary

Action for loss of support - child to be maintained retarded -   dependency of the minor child to extend to his lifetime - factors to be taken into account

                                                     SUMMARY

LAW OF DELICT: Plaintiff claiming damages suffered as a result of a choking gas being thrown into his sleeping quarters- Plaintiff having to retire  prematurely due to health complications occasioned by this incident- Plaintiff awarded damages only for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.

CIVIL PRACTICE: Claim for damages for unlawful assault by police officers- mutually destructive versions of witnesses- approach thereto

Plaintiff`s version of events was overwhelmingly credible including that he could not have been the cause of the squabble that caused an assault on him.  

Police - Actions against - Limitation of - Police Act 1998, s 77 - When required - Plaintiffs  instituting action against the police – for wrongful impoundment of appellant’s vehicle- Defendants raising special defence of Prescription within the terms of s77 of the Act – Claim not raised under the Act - claim not prescribed - Whether policeman acting 'in course and scope of his employment' as servant of State invariably   acting 'in pursuance of' Police Act, or whether two concepts necessarily co-extensive - - Plaintiffs limiting themselves to allegation that policeman acting in course and scope of his employment as servant of State - No allegation in particulars, expressly or tacitly, that policeman acting in pursuance of Act - Two concepts 'in course and scope of his employment' and 'in pursuance of the Act' notionally distinct from each other - Inherent differences justifying conclusion that two concepts legally not entirely corresponding - Only  once relevant facts established is it possible to determine, applying recognised principles, whether acts complained of amounting to conduct 'within course and scope of employment' or 'in pursuance of' or both or neither - In result, particulars in casu equivocal - Incumbent on defendants to prove that policeman's conduct on which plaintiff's action founded was in pursuance of Act - Such not proved - Special plea correctly dismissed.  

Condonation application, when grantable –Damages-Unlawful arrest, detention and injuria-Appropriate quantum of damages-when the appellate court can interfere with the primary court award of damages, when the award does not appropriately mirror the seriousness of Police misconduct.

Damages – for damage occasioned to the plaintiff’s taxi as a result of the collision with the defendant’s truck – costs of panel beating – Evidence – How loss of profit is to be approached- factors to be considered when dealing with loss of profit.

Summary:

LAW OF DELICT: The plaintiffs are claiming damages from the defendants for assault and torture - the 3rd defendant is being sued for negligent omission for handing over the suspects to the victim to ferry to the police- the victims turning against the plaintiffs along the way by severely assaulting and torturing them- The Chiefs’ legal duty flowing from the exercise of their functions in terms of the Chieftainship Act of 1968 discussed- The 3rd defendant’s action found to be the probable cause of the plaintiffs’ damage- claim against 4th to 14th defendants is based on their actual perpetration of assault and torture of the plaintiffs- Plaintiffs awarded damages.