Shilimela guard sued for shooting incident
Despite Shilimela Security Services claiming a lawsuit against it is “vague and embarrassing”, a judge has ruled that the company can be held responsible for a September 2017 shooting.
JANA-MARI SMITH
WINDHOEK
A High Court judge this week gave the greenlight for a lawsuit to continue in which two shooting victims are suing Shilimela Security Services for close to N$3 million after they were shot by one of its guards in Katutura in 2017.
Saara Kambuze and Kristof Namukwambi both launched lawsuits against Shilimela last September, three years after they were wounded by bullets fired by one of the company’s security guards at a bar in Single Quarters on 27 September 2017.
Namukwambi is asking the court to order the security company to pay him N$1.5 million for damages arising from the shooting, while Kambuze is suing the company for N$750 000.
Before their case could get underway, however, Shilimela asked that the court dismiss their lawsuits.
The company argued that not naming the security guard involved made their case unwinnable, and that they could not be held responsible for the unnamed guard’s actions.
The company also argued the lawsuit papers were “vague and embarrassing”.
Cold water
On Tuesday, judge Orben Sibeya ruled that the case could continue and that Shilimela can be held liable for the actions of an employee even if that person is not named in the claim.
The judge said Shilimela’s attempt to have the duo’s lawsuit dismissed was an attempt to pour “cold water on the threatening damages claims by the plaintiffs”.
He added that it would “defeat the ancient established principle of vicarious liability” if employers cannot be held responsible just because the name of an employee is not stated and “will amount to a travesty of justice”.
In an affidavit, the company’s owner, Banda Shilimela, argued that Kambuze and Namukwambi “intentionally failed” to cite the name of the security guard and this makes it difficult for the company to identify the person.
“I employ more than 500 security guards. As such, I can only determine whether such a security guard is under my employment if a name is provided.”
Serious injuries
Kambuze and Namukwambi’s claim rests on the shooting during which both sustained serious injuries that landed them in hospital for more than a week.
Both have bullet fragments they say cannot be removed from their bodies as they are lodged too close to vital arteries and veins.
Both say they lost income and employment as a result of the injuries and continue to suffer long-term medical pain and suffering.
Kambuze informed the court in January that according to her knowledge, the police investigation into the shooting incident has stalled over the past three years. She told the court that she opened a case with the police but that she was told three years later the “investigations are not finalised”.
She added that the police have also failed to provide her with a docket of the case.
Banda accused Kambuze of not being able to prove that she opened a case and that it was likely untrue.
The case has been postponed to 16 March for a planning conference.
The plaintiffs are represented by their legal aid lawyer Profysen Muluti of Muluti and Partners, while the security company is represented by Silas-Kishi Shakumu.
WINDHOEK
A High Court judge this week gave the greenlight for a lawsuit to continue in which two shooting victims are suing Shilimela Security Services for close to N$3 million after they were shot by one of its guards in Katutura in 2017.
Saara Kambuze and Kristof Namukwambi both launched lawsuits against Shilimela last September, three years after they were wounded by bullets fired by one of the company’s security guards at a bar in Single Quarters on 27 September 2017.
Namukwambi is asking the court to order the security company to pay him N$1.5 million for damages arising from the shooting, while Kambuze is suing the company for N$750 000.
Before their case could get underway, however, Shilimela asked that the court dismiss their lawsuits.
The company argued that not naming the security guard involved made their case unwinnable, and that they could not be held responsible for the unnamed guard’s actions.
The company also argued the lawsuit papers were “vague and embarrassing”.
Cold water
On Tuesday, judge Orben Sibeya ruled that the case could continue and that Shilimela can be held liable for the actions of an employee even if that person is not named in the claim.
The judge said Shilimela’s attempt to have the duo’s lawsuit dismissed was an attempt to pour “cold water on the threatening damages claims by the plaintiffs”.
He added that it would “defeat the ancient established principle of vicarious liability” if employers cannot be held responsible just because the name of an employee is not stated and “will amount to a travesty of justice”.
In an affidavit, the company’s owner, Banda Shilimela, argued that Kambuze and Namukwambi “intentionally failed” to cite the name of the security guard and this makes it difficult for the company to identify the person.
“I employ more than 500 security guards. As such, I can only determine whether such a security guard is under my employment if a name is provided.”
Serious injuries
Kambuze and Namukwambi’s claim rests on the shooting during which both sustained serious injuries that landed them in hospital for more than a week.
Both have bullet fragments they say cannot be removed from their bodies as they are lodged too close to vital arteries and veins.
Both say they lost income and employment as a result of the injuries and continue to suffer long-term medical pain and suffering.
Kambuze informed the court in January that according to her knowledge, the police investigation into the shooting incident has stalled over the past three years. She told the court that she opened a case with the police but that she was told three years later the “investigations are not finalised”.
She added that the police have also failed to provide her with a docket of the case.
Banda accused Kambuze of not being able to prove that she opened a case and that it was likely untrue.
The case has been postponed to 16 March for a planning conference.
The plaintiffs are represented by their legal aid lawyer Profysen Muluti of Muluti and Partners, while the security company is represented by Silas-Kishi Shakumu.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article