NICOL vs. CUSTOMS EXCISE AND PREVENTIVE SERVICE

JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J. In this action, which is founded on detinue, the plaintiff claims general damages for loss of use as well as exemplary damages for the tort, i.e. the detention itself. Unfortunately, the plaintiff could not give the exact date on which the unlawful seizure took place. She put it around the middle of August 1989. The defendants, a well-known and very powerful governmental organisation, did not at the trial lead evidence on the date the actual seizure took place, a fact which is peculiarly within their knowledge and which could or ought to be easily ascertainable from their official records. Counsel for the plaintiff has suggested we reckon 11 August 1989 as the actual date on which the event took place. I however prefer 15 August 1989 in view of the plaintiff ‘s confession that it happened around the middle of that month. The plaintiff has also testified that during that period, she was deprived of the use of her vehicle, which the evidence would suggest was.....