Scholastica Muranda v Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
1
HH 492-18
HC 1992/17
---------


SCHOLASTICA MURANDA

(in her capacity as mother and guardian to the minor child Rungano Muranda

versus

ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND

DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUSHORE J

HARARE, 14 May 2018 & 22 August 2018

Civil Trial (Damages for loss of support)

Mrs P Muchemwa, for the plaintiff

Mrs K Moyo, for the defendant

MUSHORE J: This is a matter within which the plaintiff is claiming damages for loss of support owing to the death of her husband at the defendant’s instance. On 23 December 2016, the plaintiff’s husband was electrocuted and died after he unwittingly stepped on live electricity wiring. The wiring had been left exposed by the defendant company and thus posed a danger to any person who would have used the public path it lay across. After the defendant’s accident, the defendant’s employees were forced to switch off wires from their nearby electricity feeder station in order to remove the deceased’s body from the scene of the accident. Initially, the defendant company pleaded that it was not liable to the plaintiff, but later changed its position when the parties attended trial. The only aspect of the dispute therefore relates to quantum. I invited the parties to submit their Heads of Argument outlining their respective positions in relation to the issue of quantum. The Heads were duly filed by the parties. Here is my determination on the issue of quantum.

Plaintiff is claiming US$90 297.00 for loss of support. She submitted that as her husband, the deceased was supporting her and their minor child in the form of food, clothing medical care etc.  She submitted in her declaration that the figure she was claiming was representative of the financial support which she and her minor child would have enjoyed, but for her late husband’s death. She attached the deceased’s payslip as at the time of his demise. She submitted that because her husband would have retired at the age of 65, she was entitled to 15 years of his net income, Her claim for US$90 297.00 represented 15 years of such income, based upon deceased having (according to the plaintiff) earned US$501.65 per month.

Defendant’s believes the plaintiff’s claim to be exorbitant. Defendant accepts that the plaintiff is entitled to 15years of support but avers that because the salary slip reflects that the deceased’s net-income at the time of his death was US$132.25, the sum which should be awarded to the plaintiff should be US$23 805.00.

This is a claim for specific damages. It is trite that such a claim is arrived at on actual loss suffered and loss to be suffered by the dependant/s. Such a loss is computed from the date of the delict until the date of trial where after the future loss is considered to be a continuing loss.

See: General Accident Insurance Company SA Ltd v Summers & Ors 1987 (3) SA 577

(A).

The learned authors Corbett & Buchanan in their book entitled “Quantum of Damages in Bodily Injury and Fatal Cases” 2 ed p 63 state as follows:-

“The first step in this method of assessment is to determine the facts relevant to the annuity calculation these are:

The period which the plaintiff would have enjoyed the maintenance and support of which the Plaintiff has been deprived by the death of the deceased.

What the deceased’s net annul income over that period would have ben.

How much the deceased’s net annual income would have been devoted to the maintenance and support of the plaintiff”?

The parties in this case are in agreement that plaintiff is entitled to 15 years income recompense. The net income reflected on the salary slip is clearly stated as being US$132.25. $132.25 x 12 x 15 is equal in sum to US$23 805.00. Defendant submitted that

US$23 805.00 is a reasonable award to plaintiff. I agree with the defendant.

Accordingly I order as follows:

The defendant be and is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the following:

Damages for loss of support for plaintiff and her child in the amount of

US$23 80500 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate calculated from 23 December 2016, to the date of payment in full.

Costs of suit.

Legal Resources Foundation-Harare, plaintiff’s legal practitioners

Muza & Nyapadi, defendant’s legal practitioners