Peh Swee Chin FCJ:

[1] This appeal involves a fatal accident to a pedestrian together with a motor cyclist; the latter did not give evidence in the trial court, who according to his counsel, was abroad at that time while there was no other living eyewitness to the accident apart from the motor cyclist. The somewhat unusual situation has given rise also to certain controversial questions which have to be decided.

[2] The plaintiffs are the administrators of the deceased pedestrian while the first defendant was the motorcyclist and the second defendant, the registered owner of the motorcyle driven by the first defendant. The result in the Sessions court, the trial court, was that the claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed with costs but the Sessions court further correctly proceeded to assess damages on the assumed basis of total liability as follows in the event of an appeal:

[3] The plaintiffs appealed to the High court against the dismissal of their claims; such appeal was dismissed with costs, hence the further appeal before us now.

[4] The memorandum of appeal is brief and the relevant part of which is set out below:

1) The learned High court Judge erred in law when he rejec