Table of Content
1. plaintiffs seek redress under constitutional violation. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. distinction between public and private legal remedies. (Para 3 , 6)
3. burden of proof may shift based on evidence. (Para 5)

[1] The appellants (dependent - children) appeal against the decision of the learned High Court Judge refusing damages for loss of dependency, exemplary and aggravated damages for the death of the father as a result of having been shot by the police was heard on 10 September 2014 and upon hearing we reserved judgment. My learned brothers Linton Albert JCA and Vernon Ong JCA have read the draft judgment and approved the same. This is our judgment.

[2] What is important to note in this case is that the plaintiffs have not framed the case under negligence but are in essence seeking exemplary damages for constitutional breach for violation of art 5 of the Federal Constitution as well as a claim for dependency under Civil Law Act 1956 for causing wrongful death. [See paras 4 to 9 of the statement of claim]. However, the learned Senior Federal Counsel has anchored the arguments based on negligence and says that the plaintiffs are not entitled to exemplary damages, in conseq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document