IN
THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

LILONGWE
DISTRICT REGISTRY

CIVIL
CASE NO. 588 OF 2004

BETWEEN

EDWARD
PHIRI…….………..……………………………PLAINTIFF

-AND-

ALEX
MHUMBA….……………………………………..DEFENDANT

CORAM: MANDA,
SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Katemula
for
the plaintiff

Simwaka
Court Clerk

ORDER
ON ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

The
plaintiff’s claim is for damages for false imprisonment and costs
for this action. This matter is before for the purpose of
assessing
those damages following the settlement of the issue of liability by
way of a default judgment, which the plaintiff obtained
on 7^th
October 2004.

The
defendant in this instance not only failed to file a defence but did
not attend to the assessment as well, despite being duly
served. This
hearing thus proceeded in his absence.

The
simple facts of this case were that the defendant, who had had
glasses stolen from his minibus, heard from one Ali Maulidi that
the
plaintiff was selling a rear windscreen of a minibus. Having received
this information, the defendant apparently requested
to see the
plaintiff and that when the latter obliged by going to the former’s
house. It was the plaintiff’s evidence that
when he got to the
house the defendant asked him to get in a car and that he proceeded
to drive him to Kawale Police Station, where
he was told that he was
being arrested because the had been offering a rear windscreen of a
minibus for sale. From the evidence
it would seem that it was the
defendant who told the police about the plaintiff selling the
windscreen and that he even got Ali
Maulidi to go to the police and
confirm this fact. Upon being given these facts the police proceeded
to incarcerate the plaintiff
for five days. During the five days, the
police apparently managed to conduct their own investigations into
the matter and found
that the plaintiff was offering the windscreen
on behalf of a Mrs. Mawerenga, who is in the spare parts business.
Indeed for the
accused person to be released, it was after the police
had taken him to Mrs. Mawerenga, who confirmed to the police that the
windscreen
was hers.

From
the fact and evidence that I have outlined above there is no doubt
that there was total restraint of the plaintiff’s liberty
by the
police. Indeed it is also quite clear to me that the defendant made a
charge upon which it became the duty of the police
to act (see
Chintendere v
Burroughs Limited
10 MLR 215). Indeed it is also quite clear that there was no
justification at all for the plaintiff’s arrest as such there is
no
doubt in my mind that he does deserve an award of damages. The only
issue that I have to determine therefore is the quantum
and in doing
that I did have recourse to other similar cases and also the cases
that were cited by counsel in his submission. Having
considered
these, I do agree with counsel for the plaintiff that an award of K60
000 would adequately compensate the plaintiff
and I do award him that
amount. The plaintiff is also awarded costs of this action.

Made
in Chambers this………day of……………………………………….2005.

K.T.
MANDA

SENIOR
DEPUTY REGISTRAR