Tsitsi Masunda and Victor Masunda v Alec Nyanhewe

On 22 November 2013, a motor vehicle accident occurred along Enterprises Road in Harare between a motor vehicle driven by the first plaintiff (wife) which belonged to the second plaintiff (husband), and another vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant was at fault and paid an admission of guilty fine with the Police for driving without due care and attention. As a result of the accident, the first plaintiff suffered a right tibia/ankle fracture requiring surgery with insertion of a plate and screws, and damage was caused to the motor vehicle. The defendant signed a payment contract on 29 January 2014 acknowledging indebtedness of $5,585 for hospital bills and undertaking to pay the balance for vehicle repairs. Liability was admitted at the joint pre-trial conference, leaving only quantum for determination at trial.

• 1. What amount is the defendant liable to pay the plaintiffs for damages arising from the motor vehicle accident?
• 2. Who shall bear costs of suit?
• 3. Whether the payment contract of $5,585 covered only medical bills or also included vehicle repair costs?
• 4. What quantum of damages should be awarded for past medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and vehicle damage?

The defendant was ordered to pay the first plaintiff: (1) $5,585 for past medical expenses; (2) $2,300 for future medical expenses; (3) $2,000 for pain and suffering; (4) $4,000 for loss of amenities. The defendant was ordered to pay the second plaintiff $360 for damages to the vehicle. The defendant was ordered to pay costs of suit.

1. Where a defendant signs a payment contract acknowledging indebtedness for a specific amount for hospital bills, supported by prior email communications confirming the amount relates to medical expenses, the defendant is bound by that acknowledgment regardless of whether receipts produced total the acknowledged amount. 2. In calculating damages for an unrepaired vehicle that was sold as a wreck, the correct approach is to deduct saved expenses (such as VAT and labour from repair quotations) and benefits received (insurance payouts and sale proceeds) from the assessed damage amount to determine the actual loss suffered. 3. Claims for future medical expenses should be assessed based on medical evidence of reasonably anticipated procedures and ongoing treatment requirements.

The court made observations about medical procedures for ankle injuries, noting that removal of plates and screws is optional for patients, and that assessment for replacement or fusion procedures is only warranted when pain becomes uncontrollable. The court also noted that replacement procedures typically need to be repeated after 5 years due to collapse. The court observed that in rating pain on a scale of 1 to 10, the first plaintiff's pain was at the maximum level of 10.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to quantifying damages in motor vehicle accident claims involving personal injury and property damage. It illustrates important principles regarding: (1) the interpretation of payment agreements and holding parties to their written acknowledgments of debt; (2) the assessment of damages for future medical expenses based on medical evidence; (3) the assessment of pain and suffering and loss of amenities based on disability ratings and functional limitations; and (4) the correct method for calculating damages to vehicles that are not repaired but sold as wrecks, requiring deduction of saved expenses (VAT and labour) and benefits received (insurance payouts and salvage value).