Chris Roberts v Air Zimbabwe Corporation

The plaintiff was a passenger on Air Zimbabwe Flight UM 14176 from Harare to London on 9 September 1997. The defendant airline was responsible for conveying the plaintiff's luggage to London. Upon arrival in London, the plaintiff's luggage was lost. The plaintiff accepted payment of $4,694.28 from the defendant but subsequently sued for UK£3,068.00 and Z$368,550.00 for the lost luggage and loss of earnings. At the pre-trial conference stage, the parties agreed to place a stated case before the Court regarding whether the contract was governed by the Carriage by Air Act.

• Whether the contract between the parties is governed by the Carriage by Air Act [Chapter 13:04]
• Whether the Court has discretion to award damages exceeding the liability limitations imposed by Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention (Geneva Convention) as amended by the Hague Protocol
• Whether the words 'just and equitable' in section 7(2) of the Carriage by Air Act permit the Court to exceed the prescribed liability limits

The Court answered the stated case by declaring that the contract between the parties is governed by the 1929 Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955 (not 1944 as mentioned in error in the judgment) as adopted into domestic law by the Carriage by Air Act [Chapter 13:04]. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

The binding legal principle established is that the Carriage by Air Act [Chapter 13:04], which incorporates the Warsaw Convention of 1929 as amended by the Hague Protocol of 1955, strictly limits the liability of air carriers in accordance with Article 22 of the Convention. Courts have no discretion to award damages exceeding these prescribed limits based on considerations of justice and equity. The words 'just and equitable' in section 7(2) of the Act relate only to procedural options available to courts when dealing with multiple suits against a carrier, not to the quantum of liability. Unless there is a special contract providing for higher liability limits, carriers are protected by the Convention limits which must be applied by domestic courts in accordance with Zimbabwe's obligations as a signatory to the international convention.

The Court observed that there would be little purpose served by the Carriage by Air Act if it were possible to claim an amount higher than the prescribed limit. The Court also noted that as an international convention to which Zimbabwe is a signatory, Zimbabwe is obliged to apply both the letter and spirit of the convention. There appears to be a typographical error in the judgment where it refers to the 'Hague Protocol of 1944' in one instance when it should read '1955' as stated elsewhere in the judgment and in the preamble to the Act.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean aviation law as it affirms the strict application of international convention liability limits for air carriers. It clarifies that domestic courts are bound to apply the limitations on liability prescribed by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol and incorporated into domestic law through the Carriage by Air Act. The judgment confirms that the words 'just and equitable' in section 7(2) of the Act relate only to procedural matters regarding multiplicity of suits and do not grant courts discretion to exceed prescribed liability limits. It reinforces Zimbabwe's obligation to apply international aviation conventions to which it is a signatory in accordance with their letter and spirit.