Kandido v Karongee (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3318 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 110 (3 March 2021)

Kandido v Karongee (HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3318 of 2019) [2021] NAHCMD 110 (3 March 2021)

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the physical evidence and expert testimony supported the plaintiff's version that the defendant was solely negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to maintain a safe distance, and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. The defendant's version of a head-on collision was not supported by the damage profile or the rest positions of the vehicles. No negligence was attributed to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2021] NAHCMD 110
Parties
Plaintiff: Prudencio Kandido; Defendant: Marks Karongee
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
3 March 2021
Case Number
HC-MD-CIV-ACT-DEL- 3318 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Delict (motor Vehicle Accident) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accident, Negligence, Damages, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Accident Negligence Damages Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prudencio Kandido

Plaintiff

Marks Karongee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Delict (motor Vehicle Accident) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was solely negligent and caused the motor vehicle accident
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to the accident
  3. 3 Whether the physical and expert evidence supports the plaintiff's or defendant's version

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the physical evidence and expert testimony supported the plaintiff's version that the defendant was solely negligent by failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to maintain a safe distance, and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. The defendant's version of a head-on collision was not supported by the damage profile or the rest positions of the vehicles. No negligence was attributed to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Payment in the amount of N$133,010.00 to the plaintiff
  • Interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 20% per annum from date of judgment to date of final payment