(COURT OF APPEAL) *
ALLA MAANA BINT MOHAMED vs. EL RAWDA BINT MOHAMED
AC-Revision-17-59

Revision
Principles
Damages—Measure of damages for pain and suffering—Loss of expectation of happiness
(i) Moderation must be observed in assessing damages for pain and suffering
and for loss of expectation of happiness.
(ii) A broken finger which has been put right cannot affect the expectation of happiness of a woman hairdresser.
Dicta in Benham vs. Gambling (1940) A.C. 157 approved.

Judgment
20th April 1959. M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. :—This is an application for revision by Alla Maana Mohamed, the defendant in Shendi District Court Civil Suit No. 62/1958 against the decision of the Province Judge, Northern Province, affirming the decree of the District Judge Shendi dated 24th November 1958, awarding the respondent £S.50 damages for pain and suffering.
The facts of the case as were found by the District Judge are these: — On 3rd February 1958 the plaintiff and defendant quarreled, and the quarrel developed into a fight. In the course of the fight, the defendant twisted the middle right-hand finger of plaintiff and broke it, and the plaintiff on her part bit the defendant in her bosom and caused her slight injury. It is also in evidence that the defendant bit the plaintiff on her eye-brow.
The plaintiff was under medical treatment for twenty-four days, after which she was discharged. Both parties were tried by a Native Court and each of them was given a small fine.
The defendant admits that there was a fight between her and the plaintiff, but she alleges that the plaintiff started the fight and that she was only defending herself when she caused injury to the plaintiff. It seems to me that the fight was sudden and that on the facts before the Court the defendant was not acting in self-defence.
The plaintiff is claiming £S.50 damages for pain and suffering, and also for shortened expectation of happiness.
It is settled law that injury to the person is an actionable wrong which entitles the injured person to substantial damages, and in an action for personal injuries one head of damage is for pain and suffering of the
* Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J., Abdel Rahman Nur J.
injured party, though in the absence of clear evidence of reasonably pro longed suffering there should be no award under this head.
The plaintiff was a hairdresser who was admittedly using her finger in dressing women’s hair, and for at least twenty-four days she did not earn a living. She claimed special damages for loss of earning and general damages for pain and suffering and also for loss of expectation of happiness. The District Judge awarded her a total of £S.50 for these three heads of damages. In my view there is no evidence to justify any claim for shortened expectation of happiness. A broken finger which was put right will not and cannot affect the happiness of a woman hairdresser. As to the other heads of damages, I think the District Judge over-estimated them. The medical officer who examined the plaintiff stated that in his opinion the broken finger would not totally obstruct her from hairdressing.
The evidence of two witnesses assessed the income of plaintiff between £S.10and £S.12 a month and I cannot understand how she was awarded
£S.50. We have seen the plaintiff in Court and we are convinced that there was no disfiguration either to her eye-brow or to the finger, and in our view £S.12 is a reasonable amount in the particular circumstances of this case. In Benham vs. Gambling (1941) A.C. 157 the House of Lords insisted upon the general need for moderation in assessing damages in such cases, and we see no reason to depart from such general rule.
There will be a decree ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff £S. 12 in principal and costs which are taxed at £S.I.230m/ms.