Panayotopoulos v. Millinga Civ. App. 25-D-70; 12/6/71; Patel Ag. J.

 Panayotopoulos v. Millinga Civ. App. 25-D-70; 12/6/71; Patel Ag. J.

            The appellant is the managing director of an industrial concern next to the premises of the paper “Nationalist” which employed the respondent as a photographer. On 23/2/68

            There was an explosion at the appellant’s workshop, many people gathered to see and the respondent came along to take photographs of anything of interest. There, he alleged, the appellant found him, grabbed his camera and hit it on the ground damaging it. The respondent denied this. The magistrate found for the respondent and awarded Shs.2.200/- damages being Shs. 1,000/- for the cost of repairs and Shs. 1,200/- being the loss of earnings at the rate of Shs. 200/- per month. There was evidence that only the view finder of the camera was damaged and that the cost of repairing that was 300/-, but one witness had stated that the cost of repairing the whole camera was about Shs.1,000/-

                        Held: (1) “The trial magistrate was entitled and was right in accepting the evidence of the respondent that appellant damaged the camera.” (2) “Mr. Fazal’s estimate of Shs, 1,000/- was for repairs to the camera as he saw it in court which included repairing the viewfinder, cleaning the lens, washing the camera and complete overhaul. Whereas the court is concerned only with the cost of repairing the viewfinder when awarding damages for the damage done to the camera by the appellant.” (3) “The cost of repairing the viewfinder was estimated at Shs. 300/-.” “The learned resident magistrate erred in awarding Shs. 1,000/-. (4) “The plaint did not aver the loss of earnings and the respondent did not say anything about it in his evidence. The trial magistrate therefore grossly misdirected himself in awarding Shs. 1,200/- as loss of earning.” (5) Appeal on finding dismissed; appeal on quantum of damages allowed. Damages reduced to Shs. 300/- only.