HASSAN HUSSEIN, Plaintiff v. SUDAN GOVERNMENT RAIL WAYS, Defendant
Damages-Workmen's Compensation-Amount of recovery under Sudan Gov-
ernment Pensions Ordinance 1919.
Reception-Workmen's Compensation-English statutes not incorporated into
Sudan law
Words and phrases=rGratuity't=-Does not mean "Compensation"
Workmen's Compensation-Employer's liability-Common law-Liability of em-
ployers
Workmen's Compensation-Government liability-Sudan Government Pensions
Ordinance 1919
Plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment by defendant.
Defendant paid plaintiff a gratuity under the terms of the Sudan Government
Pension Ordinance 1919, sections 42, 43 and 52. Plaintiff however sued de-
fendant for additional compensation for his injury, claiming that the amount
of the gratuity was insufficient to compensate him adequately. .
Held: (i) apart from statute or express contract, a workman who is
disabled by an accident arising out of, or in the course of his employment,
has no claim for compensation against his employer unless that accident
has been caused or contributed to by the breach by the employer of some
duty that he owes to the workman.
(ii) The English Workmen's Compensation legislation, which allows
for .such claims for compensation, ought not to be received as law in the
Sudan, since it did not arise out of English common law, but introduces
novel principles, and is based on English social and economic conditions
which do not exist in the Sudan.
(iii) Under the Sudan Government Pension Ordinance 1919 the
plaintiff is entitled only to a gratuity, not to compensation for his injury.
Sudan Government Pensions Ordinance 1919, ss. 42, 43 and 52 (1).
EnglishWorkmen's Compensation Act 1897.
English Workmen's Compensation Act 1925.
Action
May 20, 1926. Owen J.: The facts in this case are not in
dispute. The plaintiff was at all material times a rivetter employed
by the Sudan Government Railways at a monthly wage of £E.3.90
m/ms and bad been so employed with a short break in 1918-1919,
since February of 1911. In July 1924 whilst doing his ordinary work
• Court: Owen J:
as a rivetter in Khartoum North, some hot paint flew into his left
eye and as a result of the accident he lost the sight of that eye and
was discharged as medically unfit on August 6th of the same year.
That the accident arose out of and in the course of his employ-
ment is unquestioned. That he was paid the sum of £E.78.970 m/ms
under the provisions of the Sudan Government Pension Ordinance
1919, section 52 ( 1) is also unquestioned and the important issue
in the case is whether or not he is entitled to compensation in addition
to that sum. The minor issue as to the length of his service is
decided by the plaintiff's admission in the course of the hearing that
he accepts the dates in the Financial Secretary's file.
The plaintiff has claimed the sum of £E.94, but how he arrives
at that figure and what it is based upon is impossible to say except
his claim that his years of service are 16 and not 13. As he has
accepted the Government dates I can only conclude that his claim is
based on a general estimate of the sum he thinks he should receive
in addition to the £E.78 he has already taken.
Now apart from statute or express contract a workman who is
disabled, totally or partially, by an accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment has no claim for compensation against his
employer unless that accident has been caused or contributed to by
the breach by the employer of some ,duty that he owes the workman.
It would be unsafe, if not impossible, to apply the provisions of
those statutes of English law- which provide for such compensation in
that country for those statutes are the outcome of several years of
special legislation adapted to the needs of a highly organised indus-
trial system. The principles underlying them are of recent growth; they
formed no part of the common law and the conditions which gave rise
in their adoption as part of the law of England have no parallel in this
country.
Special conditions may and do arise in the Sudan from time to
time which call for special legislation but the ordinances passed to
meet those special conditions apply to them alone and. not generally
for the reasons that I have indicated. The Ordinance providing for
compensation to those workmen disabled by accident arising out of
and in the course of building the Blue Nile Bridge is an example of
this. The principles laid down in that ordinance are of special, not
1 Editor's note: The (English) Workmen's Compensation Acts 1897 and
1925.
general, application and can in no sense be relied upon by the plaintiff
in such a case as the one now under consideration.
Now the plaintiff was a government servant and his case fell
within those sections (42 and 43) of the Sudan Government Pension
Ordinance 1919, which provide for "special pensions or gratuities"
granted to those who are disabled by accident arising out of and in
the course of their employment.
The mode of calculation of the gratuity due is covered by section
52 (1) of the same Ordinance. It is to be noted that the words
"gratuity" and "compensation" are referred to in the above sections
without any special regard for their respective meanings. "Gratuity" is
not "compensation" and the use of the latter word 'in those two sections
is misleading. If "compensation" for disablement by reason of acci-
dent out of and in the course of the employment were meant, then the
method of computation laid down in section 52 (1). is wrong, for the
amount payable depends on the length of the official's service and
not upon the decrease of his earning capacity brought about b~ the
accident. Thus an old man approaching retirement would be able
to draw a much larger sum than a young . man whose actual earning
capacity might be reduced to an extent not comparable with that of the
other whose earning capacity at the time of his retirement is, to say
the least, problematical in any event. So this. sum, paid by the Govern-
ment to the plaintiff is gratuity and not compensation.
Supposing it were compensation, is it enough? Now the plaintiff
is not totally disabled. The loss of an eye does not incapacitate him
from other forms of labour. He is a young m.an, his other faculties
are unimpaired and I see no reason why should not obtain other
work in the ordinary way. His gratuity amounts nearly to two years
pay. Even if I were at liberty to increase this sum, I would not do
so, for I think it is amply sufficient.
As it is, I must take the law as I find it. He has no claim
to compensation as such, and the gratuity payable is expressed in
certain terms by the Sudan Government Pension Ordinance 1919
which applies to him:, and he has been paid the sum due.
His claim must therefore fail. It is really a hopeless one, and
I believe that the' actual sum claimed was based on a complete mis-
understanding and I am prepared to consider refund to him ' of part
of the fees paid by him in the circumstances.
Judgement for defendants