Alimamy Turay v Cecilia Koroma (CIV APP 3 of 1980) [1981] SLSC 2 (17 December 1981)

, { » ke tho ; 4 ‘EXTME SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE ; ‘raat ] won, ue, Justice B. Livesey luke = - Cad : A ae nd sactintta ant aal ae Uae, | Hon, Mr. Justice K.E.0. During = dA fog App. No. 3/80 tweens ' Asthaay forse, = apoglic | ena i Cocitia Koroma = Respondent ‘ A. Thomas, Esq. for the Appellant “ hi. michaet, Beq. for the Respondent ‘® ent tins | The respondent was injured in a motor accident on the ‘et. fresteva/Bo Bead an 170h July, 1975. 48 a result, action wae } Jaton agsinst the appellant for damages for negligence. ‘Tue ‘ \eotdent. he suffered from a fractured polvis as a result of ‘ve acoident, She was admitted in hospital from 17th July, 1975 » Sth September, 1975 and continued physictheraphy treatment WAereafter as an out-patient. When the Specialist Gynaecologist had Obstretrician examined her on 31et March, 1977 his findings are: the fracture had healed but there was gross deformity of te pelvis canal 4.0, the birth canal. The injuries vere wrmanent, As a result of the deformity of the pelvis, future ‘dL torm pregnancies will have to be delivered by caesarean # setion operction, Thie will limit her child bearing to three tildren, The carriage of @ pregnancy will be painful as a result {the bone injuries to the pelvis, She would probably always DBS.

a)

Although the reason for the proceedings was irrelevant yot ~ “| pertinent and useful evidence did emerge from them. It was from those proceedings that the learned trial Judge could have, instead of making a negative finding as he did,

Yi found the 19th August, 1966 as the Court of Appeal, the learned ©,J. and 0.B.R, Tejan J.S.C. found as the date of execution of the deed.

Tt was from the evidence in those proceedings that the reason for non-registration within 10 days of the 6th August, 1966 emerged. I agroo with the learned Chief Justice that the Court of Appeal, having established the date of execution, considered a cine reason for tho failure to register that was not in relation to } that date, : ‘The reason for failure to register within 10 days from 6th August, 1966 as disclosed by the evidence was that the ‘applicant in the High Court felt that the deed was not yet ripe for rogistration as both parties had not by then signed the document, This misapprehension in my opinion must have been induced by the testimunium clause in the deed. Considering all the otroumstances and the dictum of Lord Aitkin at p.649 of the report in Bvans & Bartham cited by my brother Tejan J.S.C. T i would say the reason vas excusable. ! I would therefore dismiss the appeal and grant leave to the Respondents to register the deed Ex, "A" to take effect as from + Hon, Mr. Justice C.S, Davies Justice of Appeal

UL a tt ds necossary to refer to the judgment. After the learned ~*~ 4 Judge had considered and decided on the claim for special damages ’ he proceeded thus: "E have now to consider plaintiff's future or . prospective loss of earnings, I realise that 4 Plaintiff is an infant still attending school and has not yet embarked on any career, and 0 there is no figure for net annual loss at the date of trial. ‘There is no scale on which T can weigh the injuries of this girl for ; compensation, I am therefore reduced to a pure guesswork for the ciroumatances of this Kind of case defy anything 1ike a precise arithmetical calculation, I therefore have to 7 take overything into consideration in granting the plaintire a lump sult, which I consider commensurate enough in the circunstances of hor case." The learned judge thon highlighted certain "salient points" in the medical evidergé and then continued: SI rortise 1 the efroumetances, I have to avard 4 lump sum once and for all, which ; WALL be considered reasonable and in doing | i #0 T have to take into account all the above | consiterstione.* It should be noted that in the first passage the Learned } Judge said thy he hat to consider "the plaintiff's future or weverything isto consideration in granting the plaintiff a lump ‘ cum." In the second passage the learned judge said that in making # once for all lump sum avard he had to take inte account "all the aboy considerations," It sooms quite clear to me that : Des ae ane cere Seat as tet creed tee oes cara a3 | N85 .00006

| ee 3 | the second passage was the very first “consideration” he mentioned ” 4 at the beginning of the first passage i.e. "future or prospective lose of earaings." Therefore, vhon the tvo passages are read together, T am left in no doubt that the learned judge took * “future or prospective loss of earnings" into consideration in assessing general dansges. don't think that there is any dispute that the evidence An this case does not varrant the avard of any damages in respect } of "future or prospective loss of earnings." Since the judge, 4a ay view, took that head of damages! into consideration in waking his avards, in ay judgnent, he thereby erred. The principles governing an appellate court in appeals against avard of damages are vell-settied, In Idrises Gonteh y, Abdul J, Kamara (supra) this court said inter alia:- "Dut a voll eetablished rule has bean accepted ever the years as governing en Appelinte Court t in the exercise of its power to review an award of damages by a judge sitting alone The rule 4 that an Appellate Court will not interfere with an avard of damages unloss it is satisfied that the Judge acted on a vrong principle of Lavy or has misapprebented the feote or hes made « | wuolly erroneous eatimate of tne damages te | +4 which the claiaant 4s entitied." | see atso Flint vy Lover (1995) 1 K.B, 954 C.A. per Greer LiJe > i at p. 3603 and Owen v, Sykes (1936) 1 K.B. 192 C.A. per Greer | Lid, at py 198. | In my judgment the learned judge gave woight to matters that ought - | facts, resulting in his making an erroneous estimate of the damages | court has the power and the duty to correct the error by intorferinc ~ : with the award of damages,

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.