Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
Mandeep Tours, a luxury bus company, has been ordered to pay US$145 000 in damages to Govasberg, another bus operator, for the total loss of its bus in a tragic head-on collision that occurred on October 6, 2019.
The accident, which took place along the highway between Kwekwe and Gweru, resulted in the deaths of 13 people and left several others seriously injured.
The collision involved a Gokwe-bound Mandeep bus and a Govasberg bus traveling towards Gweru.
Both drivers died in the crash.
The accident was attributed to negligence on the part of the Mandeep bus driver, who reportedly dozed off, lost control of the vehicle, and veered into the oncoming lane.
Interplan Investments (Pvt) Ltd, the owner of Govasberg, filed a lawsuit against Reclenix Investments (Pvt) Ltd, trading as Mandeep Tours, seeking compensation and related costs.
Interplan argued that the Mandeep driver’s negligence caused the collision and that Reclenix was liable for the damages.
Reclenix refuted the claim, asserting that Interplan failed to prove that the Mandeep driver caused the accident, given that both drivers had died.
The bus company also argued that its insurance provider, Clarion Insurance, had already compensated Interplan with the statutory limit of US$2 000.
However, after evaluating the evidence, the court ruled in favour of Interplan, granting damages for the replacement cost of the bus but dismissing Interplan’s claim for lost income.
Justice Tawanda Chitapi ordered Reclenix to pay US$145 042.94 (or its equivalent in local currency) as the replacement cost for the destroyed Govasberg bus, with interest at 5 percent per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
An additional US$1 120 was awarded for towing costs, also subject to 5 percent interest. The court dismissed claims against Clarion Insurance and Happiness Gogwe, a director of Reclenix, and held that there was no basis to attach personal liability to Gogwe.
The judge criticised the poor quality of the defendants’ legal defense and documentation, which he described as unhelpful to the court.
He noted that the case was complex, involving intricate issues such as the assessment of damages and liability, but rebuked the plaintiff’s legal team for filing defective pleadings.
Justice Chitapi emphasised that the principle of corporate legal personality prevents shareholders or directors from being personally liable for a company’s debts unless specific grounds are established and properly pleaded.
The court relied on evidence from several witnesses, including passengers and police officers.
Constable Lizette Dhenya, a passenger on the Mandeep bus, testified that the driver swerved into the oncoming lane and collided with the Govasberg bus.
She described the moments leading up to the collision, noting that the Govasberg bus driver had tried to avoid the crash by moving to the extreme edge of his lane.
Constable Dhenya’s testimony was deemed credible and consistent with evidence from other witnesses.
Sergeant Lovemore Tibugwe, an accident evaluator with 18 years of experience, provided a detailed analysis of the crash. He testified that the Mandeep bus was traveling at 110 km/h, exceeding the 80 km/h speed limit for buses.
The collision occurred in the Govasberg bus’s lane, and evidence at the scene, including the position of the vehicles and the damages, supported the conclusion that the Mandeep bus driver was at fault.
Serg Tibugwe’s reconstruction of the accident was thorough, and the court found his testimony credible.
Another witness, Lazarus Chigova, Interplan’s operations director, testified about the financial losses incurred due to the accident.
He provided documentation to show that the Govasberg bus worth US$145 000 was damaged beyond salvation.
Chigova also detailed towing costs and the operational disruptions caused by the loss of the bus. However, the court dismissed the claim for lost income, finding the evidence insufficient to substantiate the alleged losses.
The defence called two witnesses, including a passenger on the Mandeep bus, who claimed that the bus was not speeding. However, the court found this testimony unconvincing, particularly in light of the speedometer evidence and the extent of the damage.
Another defence witness, a manager from Reclenix, testified about the company’s maintenance practices but provided no relevant information about the cause of the accident.
Clarion Insurance, the insurer of the Mandeep bus, argued that it had fulfilled its statutory obligation by paying US$2 000 to Interplan.
The court agreed and found no basis to hold the insurer liable for additional damages.
The judge noted that Clarion’s liability was governed by statutes and that it had acted in accordance with the law.
Justice Chitapi criticised the Interplan lawyer for failing to establish a clear legal connection between Gogwe’s personal liability and the actions of Reclenix.
The judge emphasised that companies are separate legal entities, and their shareholders or directors cannot be held personally liable unless specific circumstances justify piercing the corporate veil.
The court also highlighted the importance of proper pleadings in civil litigation, noting that defective pleadings can hinder the administration of justice.
Despite these shortcomings, the court resolved the case based on the issues identified at the pre-trial conference.
Justice Chitapi reiterated that parties must clearly articulate their claims and defences in the pleadings to ensure a fair trial.
