The Appellant was the owner of a Mercedes Benz vehicle, registration no. AAR 9876. In July 2010, he took his vehicle to the Respondent, the authorized agent for Mercedes Benz Germany and South Africa, for repairs. In July 2011, the vehicle was taken to Mecurious Motors (“MM”) for further repairs. Mecurious Motors withheld the vehicle for alleged unsettled bills for earlier repairs to the same vehicle.
The Appellant commenced an action against the Respondent, claiming damages for failure to repair his motor vehicle, non-use of the vehicle, and an order that the vehicle be returned to the Respondents garage or to be collected from MM and be repaired. The Respondent counter claimed the sum of K36, 000, being the balance on the bill for works, interest, and costs. The Appellant’s claims were dismissed and the Respondent’s counterclaim succeeded. The Appellant appealed and the Respondent cross appealed.
1. The court will not reverse findings of fact made by a trial judge unless it is satisfied that the findings in question were either perverse or made in the absence of any relevant evidence, or upon a misapprehension of the facts or that they were findings on which a proper view of the evidence, no trial court acting correctly would reasonably make. Philip Mhango v Dorothy Ngulube and Others (1983) ZR, 61 applied.
2. The trial court has a duty to adjudicate upon every aspect of the suit between the parties so that every matter in controversy is determined in finality. Wilson Masauso Zulu v Avondale Housing Project Limited (1982) ZR 172 applied.
3. The general principle is that costs should follow the event, unless the successful party did something wrong in the action or conduct of it. YB and F Transport Limited v Supersonic Motors Limited (2000) ZR 22 applied.
4. Payment of interest is normally regarded as equivalent to an award of damages for the detention of a debt. Zambia State Insurance Corporation v Serios Farms Limited (1987) ZR 93 applied.