Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site.

We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/

Court name
Supreme Court
Case number
CS 80 of 2015
Counsel for plantiff

Dodin v Geers (CS 80 of 2015) [2017] SCSC 158 (21 February 2017);

Media neutral citation
[2017] SCSC 158
Counsel for defendant
Mr. Derjacques
Nunkoo, J

Civil Side: CS 80/2015

[2017] SCSC 158




Heard: 22nd of February 2017

Counsel: Mr. Durup for the plaintiff

Mr. Derjacques for the defendant

Delivered: 22nd of February 2017


Nunkoo J

[1] The plaintiff is claiming R800, 200.00 as damages from Defendant following a road accident in which he was injured. He is alleging that Defendant was negligent and therefore liable to compensate him.
[2] The facts alleged are as follows. On 7th December 2014, around 3 am, the defendant collided with his car from the opposite direction. This happened at Bois de Rose, Victoria.
[3] The claim is as follows:
Moral damages for pain, suffering, distress, discomfort, disability, shock and anxiety - Rs 800,000.00
Medical Report - Rs. 200.00
[4] Medical evidence was adduced in respect of the injury and the treatment as well as its sequel. Plaintiff had received injury in his knees and in his eyes.
[5] Plaintiff called the ophthalmologist, Dr Rolland Barbe, who had treated the plaintiff. He stated that the plaintiff upon examination was found to have sustained a laceration in the right eye on the eyebrow and the upper lid. The wound was sutured and when he was last examined in July the wound had healed.
[6] But he noted there was inversion at the level of the eyelashes and about three or four were inverted and this had to be removed from time to time. He also noted that there was some misalignment of the upper lid in the right eye and this would require epilation every two to three months. He confirmed that there was no problem with the vision of the eye except for the fact that the eyelash caused a new sense and this would require regular epilation.
[7] The next witness was the orthopedic surgeon who explained that the injury in the right knee required surgery as X-ray revealed that he had sustained a fracture of the patella. Plaintiff was hospitalized for four days. He also stated that the plaintiff has recovered but he may suffer pain when climbing stairs and his knee may become swollen. He also stated that such patients develop osteoarthritis.
[8] The plaintiff described his injury and showed the knee. He admitted having recovered but stated to the court that he could not run as before and that he had to go for epilation of the eyelashes regularly.
[9] Liability is admitted by the Defendant and the only issue is the quantum of damages. Counsel for defendant failed to make any submission on this issue though he was given adequate opportunity to do so.
[10] Counsel for plaintiff has submitted on the quatum. He has referred the court to the following cases: Farabeau Casamar Seychelles Ltd (2012) SLR 170 where for almost similar injury, moral damages for pain and suffering, distress and inconvenience, loss of amenities and permanent disability in the amount of Rs. 350,000.00 was awarded.
[11] Counsel for plaintiff has also drawn the attention of the court to the fact that there is an upward trend in the assessment of damages in view of rising inflation. The court does take judicial notice of this fact.
[12] The plaintiff has also suffered injury to his eye lid which will not heal completely and will require to regular treatment.
[13] Judgment is hereby given in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs 760,200.

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 22nd of February 2017.

S Nunkoo
Judge of the Supreme Court