LUTTERODT JA
On the 19th of April 1986, the first appellant ran a City Express Services Tata bus GV 5710 he was driving into the respondent’s taxi cab. The latter therefore caused his solicitors to issue a writ against not only the actual tortfeasor, that is the first appellant, but his masters the owners of the vehicle, the second appellants, who in law are vicariously liable for all torts committed by their servant in the course of his employment. Because the vehicle became a total wreck, he sought damages for the pre-accident value of the vehicle which he himself set at ¢180,000. He also asked for general damages for loss of use at ¢3,000 per diem calculable from the date of the accident to the date of judgment.
The judgment delivered on 14th June 1988 went in favour of the respondent who was awarded the sum of ¢220,000 as damages for the pre-accident value of the vehicle, as well as ¢2,000 per diem for loss of use for a six-day week and which was to be calculated from the date of t…