BETWEEN. NYEEM MOHAMMED First Claimant NATALIA MOHAMMED (a minor by her father Nyeem Mohammed and next of kin) Second Claimant AND SARJU SINGH

Transcription

1 IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO CV BETWEEN NYEEM MOHAMMED First Claimant NATALIA MOHAMMED (a minor by her father Nyeem Mohammed and next of kin) Second Claimant AND SARJU SINGH ********************************************* Defendant Before: Master Alexander Appearances: For the Claimants: Ms Shabana Mohammed No Appearances for the Defendant DECISION 1. Nyeem Mohammed was driving his vehicle registration number HBM 4119 (hereinafter the maxi taxi ) around 9:30 pm on Sunday 8 th August, 2008 and on approaching the Preysal Flyover, Sarju Singh, the defendant, approaching from the opposite direction collided firstly with another vehicle PCB 2601 before crashing head on into the maxi taxi. Natalia Mohammed, the second claimant, is a minor and the daughter of Nyeem Mohammed and was a passenger in her father s vehicle, along with other family members, on the night of the accident. On the night of the accident, they were both pinned in the maxi taxi. Nyeem Mohammed was removed from the maxi taxi by officers of the Fire Service Department who had to cut it open. On 28 th September, 2010 Nyeem Mohammed filed this claim on behalf of his daughter and himself seeking compensation for personal injuries as well as consequential losses. Page 1 of 16

2 2. On 6 th January, 2011 judgment in default of appearance was entered against Sarju Singh and the assessment proceeded unchallenged. Nyeem Mohammed was 37 years at the time of the accident and Natalia Mohammed was 5 years. THE INJURIES Nyeem Mohammed As a result of this accident, Nyeem Mohammed sustained injuries to his left and right lower limbs and chest as set out in the medical report of Dr Anil Kumar, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 20 th November, 2009 below: Left Lower Limb - a commuted segmental tibia and fibula displaced fracture, patella tendon fracture and fifth metatarsal fracture. Right Lower Limb - displaced patella fracture with patella tendon rupture and anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Extensive Grade IIIB open fracture dislocation of the foot and ankle injury with missing tarsal bones. Chest - injury to chest, rib fractures and pulminory consolidation. Natalia Mohammed 3. By medical report of Dr Anil Kumar, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 20 th November, 2009 Natalia Mohammed s injuries were set out as a right femur shaft displaced fracture; multiple abrasions and bruises of the face and extremities. Page 2 of 16

3 GENERAL DAMAGES 4. General damages are damages presumed by law to flow from the wrong committed by the defendant, as the direct, natural and probable consequences of it. See Mario s Pizzeria Ltd v Hardeo Ramjit. 1 It is the loss to the claimant that cannot be precisely quantified, namely past and future non-financial loss and future pecuniary loss. Generally, to assess general damages, the principles set out in Cornilliac v St Louis 2 are applied: i. The nature and extent of the injuries sustained; ii. The nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability; iii. The pain and suffering which had to be endured; iv. The loss of amenities suffered; and v. The extent to which the plaintiff s pecuniary prospects have been materially affected. Nature and extent of the injuries sustained Nyeem Mohammed 5. The nature and extent of the injuries of Nyeem Mohammed were set out in the report by Dr Kumar as detailed above. In addition, he states that his right great toe and first metarsal bone was amputated. He has also had reconstructive surgical procedures; received multiple pre-operative blood transfusions and physiotherapy. Natalia Mohammed 6. The nature and extent of the injuries of Natalia Mohammed were set out in the report by Dr Kumar as detailed above. In addition, she underwent 2 major surgical procedures open reduction and internal fixation of the fracture of the right femur as well as surgery to remove the plate and screws from the right femur used for fixation of the fracture. 1 Mario s Pizzeria Ltd v Hardeo Ramjit CA 146 of Cornilliac v St Louis (1965) 7 WIR 491 Page 3 of 16

4 The nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability Nyeem Mohammed 7. Following the accident, Nyeem Mohammed has had several surgical procedures. He is currently unable to walk without the use of a walking aid and has significant scarring to both feet. Counsel for the claimants has submitted that it is unlikely that the visibility of these scars would decrease with time or he would regain the use of his legs, particularly the right leg, the way he did before the accident. It is to be noted, however, that there is no medical or other evidence in support of this contention and no weight is given to it. It is noted that Dr Kumar s report states, [P]ost-operatively his recovery from injuries was satisfactory except for his right foot. Natalia Mohammed 8. Natalia Mohammed has healed successfully, without any complications, save for the visible scarring on her leg, from the surgical procedures. Counsel for the claimants has submitted that it is unlikely that the visibility of these scars would be reduced with time. Again it is to be noted that there is no medical or other evidence in support of this contention. Pain and suffering endured Nyeem Mohammed 9. Nyeem Mohammed states that after the collision occurred, he was pinned under the dash board of his vehicle. He could not feel anything from his waist downward and was unable to move his legs. He was removed from the maxi taxi with the Jaws of Life, lost consciousness and woke up in the San Fernando General Hospital the next morning. He states that on regaining consciousness, he was in extreme pain and remained in that state for the next 8 days. He states, I was in severe pain especially in my waist, back and legs. I could not move my feet and my right leg had a throbbing pain from my hip to my toe. I looked at my leg and realized that I had Plaster Paris from the top of my right leg to the complete end of my feet. At some point he was transported to Surgi-Med to have a CT Scan done privately and he described this process as extremely painful and although he was stabilized before and during his transportation, [E]very little hump or pothole on the road send (sic) shock waves of pain throughout my body. On return to the Page 4 of 16

5 hospital, he learnt that his daughter had surgery to repair her broken leg and he experienced severe grief when he called her and heard her screaming in pain and could not be there to comfort her. It is his evidence that he obtained little relief from the pain killers prescribed and he could not even think rationally because of the excruciating pain. At some point his leg began to smell putrid and his wife decided to transfer him to Medical Associates on 16 th August, At Medical Associates, he was attended to by Dr Kumar and was in tremendous pain throughout the examination and treatment. He gave evidence that after his surgeries at Medical Associates, he spent 2 of the most painful weeks in his life being cared for and it was a very humiliating experience. He underwent 3 surgeries at Medical Associates and initially 1 at San Fernando General Hospital. He was released from Medical Associates and given a machine to attach to his right foot with a tube to help remove the fluid so that his foot could heal faster. Using this machine was painful and it made moving around difficult, as he had to ensure that the dressings on his wounds were not affected by the machine. At home, he started using a wheelchair to get around the house. The pains continued at home and there were nights he would lay crying out in pain. In November, 2009 his toe was amputated and six weeks after this surgery, sometime in December 2009, a skin graft was done to his right foot. This surgery was also painful. Subsequently, he did knee replacement surgery in February, He gave evidence that because of the pins and screws in his knee cap, climbing steep surfaces such as hills makes the pain in his knees unbearable. Natalia Mohammed 11. There was no evidence before this court as to the pain and suffering of Natalia Mohammed as she was a minor. It is assumed from the nature and extent of her injuries that she would have been in unbearable pain. Her legs were pinned under the dashboard of the maxi taxi and her right leg was broken as a result. She also had several surgeries, which were undoubtedly painful. Page 5 of 16

6 Loss of amenities suffered Nyeem Mohammed 12. It is the evidence of Nyeem Mohammed that whilst in hospital, his right leg was placed in a Plaster of Paris cast from his hip to his toe and he was, therefore, completely immobile from his waist downwards. He could not do anything for himself. Following several surgeries, including the amputation of his toe, he was confined to a wheelchair. He states that his ordeal has left him depressed, emotionally and financially stressed. He hates having to depend on people to do everything for him and he is frustrated with his inability to take care of his family or be the kind of father he wanted to be to his children. Currently, he cannot walk without the aid of a stick or stand for lengthy periods. 13. He gave evidence that prior to the accident he loved taking his children to the beach, hiking and playing sports every weekend but due to his condition, he can no longer perform these activities. He cannot bend or kneel as his knee is still very weak and any pressure might dislocate the screws and pins in his knee cap. Also, he cannot climb steep surfaces because of the pain. Further, he no longer wears short pants or any type of revealing clothing as he is embarrassed by the scars on his legs. He states also that his injuries have hampered his marital relationship and sexual intercourse has become difficult. It is also his evidence that his injuries have placed stress on his wife as she is now left to bear the burden of dealing with his medical problems as well as tending to the household, added to the responsibility of being now the sole breadwinner in the home. Extent to which pecuniary prospects have been materially affected Nyeem Mohammed 14. Nyeem Mohammed is a maxi taxi driver. He states that his pecuniary prospects have been materially affected and he has not been able to work since the accident as he can no longer drive due to his injuries. He states that following the accident, he has had to sell his maxi taxi to meet his medical expenses. He is no longer able to meet the financial responsibility of his household and his wife is now the sole breadwinner. In his pleadings, there is a claim for loss of earnings of approximately $12, per month and not loss of use (discussed below). Page 6 of 16

7 AUTHORITIES ON GENERAL DAMAGES Nyeem Mohammed 15. Counsel for Nyeem Mohammed suggested the sum of $400, as a reasonable award for the injuries he sustained and provided several cases in support as follows: Wilson Frank v Charles Mc Enearney and Co Ltd 3 where Bourne J awarded for fractures of the leg and foot and disfigurement the sum of $24,000.00; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $452, Gonsalves v Teeluckchan 4 where des Iles J awarded for a severe fracture of the right femur; damage to knee and shortening of leg by 2 inches the sum of $60,000.00; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $391, Burnett v Kolasingh and Antoni 5 where Master Gopeesingh awarded for a fracture of the femur leading to a series of operations the sum of $35,000.00; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $164, Counsel submitted that the injuries in the Wilson Frank matter appear to come closest to those sustained in the case at hand and that consideration must be given to the fact that he had severe fractures to both legs; sustained fractured ribs and amputation of his toe. It is to be noted, however, that all the authorities presented were quite dated. I, therefore, sought the guidance from some recent decisions and a few other older cases to determine an appropriate award in the circumstances of the instant case including: Kanhai v Mohammed and Ors 6 where Master Paray-Durity on 27 th June 2008 awarded $250, to a 17 year claimant for fractures of the tibiae and fibulae of 3 Wilson Frank v Charles Mc enearney and Co Ltd HCA 1876 of Gonsalves v Teeluckchan Gonsalves v Teeluckchan HCA 277 of Burnett v Kolasingh and Antoni HCA 3459 of Kanhai v Mohammed and Ors HCA 1087/2006 Page 7 of 16

8 both legs, several surgeries; legs of different lengths; continuing pain; and scarred leg; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $309, Future pecuniary loss was awarded in the sum of $150, and future surgery in the sum of $45, Gill v Hinds 7 where Best J in 1993 awarded $68, for fractures of the femur, tibia and ulna; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $181, Laurence Ganga and Or v Marlon Kendall and Ors 8 where Kokaram J awarded $80, to a 16 year old boy for fractures of the left clavicle, left ramus, tibia and fibula; persistent pain; swelling of hip, leg, shoulder and disability to walk. His injuries affected his work, studies and pre-accident sporting activities. Nimrod Joseph v Roy Edwards & Presidential Insurance Co 9 where in a February, 2012 decision of this court a claimant (a driver by profession) who had sustained a fractured right tibia and fibula; comminuted intra-articular fracture left distal radius; cerebral concussion; multiple abrasions to both arms, right thigh, left leg; and face and suffered with a loose incisor tooth and underwent open reduction and internal fixation surgery of the right tibia with an intramedually nail; could not stand or walk for prolonged periods and walked with a pronounced limp and with the aid of a walking cane was awarded $160, Natainia Brown v Sigma Car Dealers & Ors 10 where in February, 2012 a claimant who had suffered severe trauma to her hip region and right ankle; facial, leg and knee lacerations; a fractured clavicle at the junction of the middle and distal third and deformity over the right clavicle; swelling of the left proximal thigh with lower limb shortened and externally rotated; fractures of the left femur and of the medial malleolus and of the talus; had a plaster cast inserted below the right knee and a 7 Gill v Hinds HCA 53 of 1983 Gill v Hinds HCA 53 of Laurence Ganga and Or v Marlon Kendall and Ors HCA S-5 of Nimrod Joseph v Roy Edwards & Presidential Insurance Co CV Natainia Brown v Sigma Car Dealers & Ors CV /HCA S-1145 of 2005 Page 8 of 16

9 Steinman pin inserted to the left proximal tibia; was the recipient of blood transfusion; underwent several surgeries; right ankle showed antero lateral subluxation of the talus; pain and deformity of the right ankle with difficulty walking; walks with a permanent limp and used a walking stick because of limited mobility. She also experienced breathing difficulties and chest pains while walking, restricted movement of the right arm, nasal pain and discomfort while sleeping; and scarring and a diminished sex life. She spent 3 weeks immobilized in hospital and received 8 pints of blood. She was awarded $280, for non-pecuniary losses. Ramroop v Burroughs Welcome & Co Ltd 11 where an award of $14, was made for fractures of both legs; 1.25 shortening of left leg; osteo-arthritis; postconcussion headaches and dizziness; touch loss; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $211, Caribbean Molasses Co. (Trinidad) Ltd v Ganness 12 where in 1983 an award was made to a plaintiff/taxi driver in the sum of $30, for fractures of the right fibula, femur and tibia; loss of movement in knee and 3 shortening; as adjusted to December, 2010 to $195, The injuries in the several cases referred to above were not always perfectly on par with the injuries of Nyeem Mohammed but were useful for comparative purposes particularly the case of Ramroop v Burroughs (supra). Further, I found that the injuries in the cases of Natainia Brown (supra) and that of Kanhai v Mohammed (supra) were more extensive than the injuries under consideration here but they were useful in determining the appropriate award for Nyeem Mohammed (see below). 11 Ramroop v Burroughs Welcome & Co Ltd HCA 457 of Caribbean Molasses Co. (Trinidad) Ltd v Ganness CA 7 of 1979 Page 9 of 16

10 Natalia Mohammed 18. Counsel for Natalia Mohammed suggested the sum of $100, as a reasonable award for the injuries she sustained on the basis of the following cases: Le Croix v Campbell and Alcazar 13 where Master Paray-Durity awarded a 12 year old $125, for fracture of the left femur, 2.2cm shortening of the leg, subsequent arthroscopic surgery and recommendation for upper tibial osteotomy; as adjusted to December 2010 to $354, Tikaram v Courtier and Hays 14 where Cross J awarded an 8 year old $6, for the fractured femur; as adjusted to December 2010 to $72, In addition to the cases cited above with respect to Natalia Mohammed, I had regard to the fact that apart from the fractured femur, she sustained lacerations about her face and body but as at the date of assessment, she had healed successfully and completely save for the scarring. In the circumstances, I consider an award of $70, would meet the justice of this case. 20. Generally, damages must compensate for an established loss and not give some gratuitous benefit to an injured claimant. In arriving at the appropriate awards, I considered the evidence before me, the pain and suffering endured and the emotional effects of the scarring that continue to impact negatively on the lives of these victims. In the case of Nyeem Mohammed, the accident brought to a screeching halt his pre-accident life. Whilst perfect compensation is hardly possible, he is entitled to an award that is full and adequate to compensate him for his injuries, the resultant pain and suffering, and general inconvenience that he has been made to endure. Neither Nyeem Mohammed nor Natalia Mohammed invited the defendant to perpetrate this wrong act upon them. They were proceeding about their normal, ordinary life when the defendant by his negligent act plunged them into pain 13 Le Croix v Campbell and Alcazar HCA 708 of Tikaram v Courtier and Hays HCA 3019 of 1976 Page 10 of 16

11 and suffering and left them physically and emotionally scarred. For this, monetary awards can hardly compensate. 21. In addition, I considered that it is a once and for all award so must adequately compensate for the injuries sustained and not meant to secure some unjust enrichment to victims. I, therefore, find the following to be fair, reasonable and appropriate awards: To Nyeem Mohammed the sum of $225, for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. To Natalia Mohammed the sum of $70, SPECIAL DAMAGES 22. Generally, special damages must be pleaded, particularized and strictly proved 15. A claimant in an assessing court is required to come armed with the requisite proof of losses sustained. In the absence of the necessary documentary proof (such as receipts, bills, invoices, pay slips etc) items of special damages will be disallowed. Transportation 23. In his witness statement, Nyeem Mohammed stated that after being sent home from Medical Associates, he hired a private ambulance twice per week at the cost of $ per trip to take him back to change his dressings. He did not secure receipts for these expenses. It is to be noted that the statement of claim is silent as to any pleadings for transportation costs and in the face of the lack of documentary proof, this claim is disallowed. Medical Expenses and Reports 24. A claim for medical expenses in the sum of $336, was made in the statement of case. The requisite documentary proof was furnished in the sum of $290, for Nyeem Mohammed and $33, for Natalia Mohammed so these sums are allowed. 15 Grant v Motilal Moonan Ltd. (1988) 43 WIR 372 per Bernard CJ and reaffirmed in Rampersad v Willies Ice-Cream Ltd Civil App 20 of 2002 Page 11 of 16

12 Loss of earnings 25. As a rule, a statement of case should identify all the heads of loss that are being claimed. See Charmaine Bernard v Seebalack. 16 In the instant case, a claim was made for loss of earnings, as required for such a claim as it, is capable of substantially exact calculation. It is worth reiterating here the comments of the Privy Council in Seebalack that it is the plaintiff s, undoubted obligation to plead and particularise any item of damage which represents out-ofpocket expenses or loss of earnings, incurred prior to the trial, and which is capable of substantially exact calculation. Such damage is commonly referred to as special damage or special damages but is no more than an example of damage which is special in the sense that fairness to the defendant requires that it be pleaded. 26. Nyeem Mohammed pleads that he was a maxi taxi driver working approximately 6 days a week and earning approximately $12, per month. His alleged loss of earnings as at the date of filing the statement of case in September, 2010 was $300, and continuing. He states also that consequent on his injuries, he has had to sell his maxi taxi (for an undisclosed sum) to meet his medical expenses. It is to be noted that this claim is for loss of earnings and not loss of use of the maxi taxi, nor does he seek any compensation for property damage. Is he entitled to his claim for loss of earnings? 27. In addressing this issue, it is note-worthy that he has annexed no documentary evidence in support of this claim. He was self-employed so could not produce a job letter or pay slips confirming employment. He also did not produce any bank statement, evidence of income tax and other statutory payments or any other document to show he was in receipt of such monthly emoluments as pleaded. He has produced evidence of ownership of the maxi taxi but none that he was the owner/driver, given the prevalent practice of owners hiring drivers for their maxi taxis in this jurisdiction. 28. I am of the view that Nyeem Mohammed has failed to provide any proper evidential basis to support his claim for loss of earnings, and that it cannot be maintained. To my mind, he could have furnished the requisite proof to substantiate this claim, especially as having 16 Charmaine Bernard v Seebalack, PC No 0033 of page 7 Page 12 of 16

13 alleged a loss, it was his responsibility to prove it. In this regard, I note the words of Master Paray-Durity in Sookdaye Babwah v Dennis Harrinanan & Ors 17 on the type of proof, evidence and pleading required for a claim of special damages to be validly constituted, who quoting from Bonham Carter observed: On an evaluation of the evidence in support of item (a) it is the Court s opinion that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately prove the full extent of her alleged loss of earnings. The Plaintiff has not produced any bills or receipts to prove her purchases of material and sale of the manufactured goods, she has also failed to provide the Court with sufficient particularity of the types of bags sold to the business places that she named and the number of bags which were sold. [emphasis mine] 29. Further, I note the words of Pemberton J in Elva-Dick Nicholas v Jayson Hernandez and Capital Insurance Limited 18 that, [I]t is clear that the mere enumeration of alleged losses is insufficient proof and the Court would be restrained to deny compensation for items of damage not proven by way of proper documentation, for instance the production of receipts or invoices. To my mind, his claim for loss of earnings is untenable and is refused for insufficiency of proof. FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME 30. Nyeem Mohammed claims future loss of earnings of $2,304, on the basis of his average monthly salary of $12,000.00, of which there is no evidence before this court. There is also no medical report certifying him permanently unfit to work and/or pronouncing that his injuries will severely impact on his earning capacity. Given that his injuries were to his legs and that his pre-accident job was that of a maxi taxi owner or driver, his earning capacity may be impacted but his medical report is silent in this respect. I am, however, in the face of a dearth of evidence asked to assess his losses. In this regard, I note the stark absence of any evidence that points to the length of his incapacitation, whether his injuries will permanently or temporarily affect his earning capacity, whether he is qualified for or fit to do another job. This task is impossible, given the insufficiency of the evidence. 17 Sookdaye Babwah v Dennis Harrinanan & Ors HCA S-136 of Elva-Dick Nicholas v Jayson Hernandez and Capital Insurance Limited CV Page 13 of 16

14 31. In Peter Seepersad (supra), a taxi driver was awarded loss of future earnings using the multiplier/multiplicand approach based on the evidence of his previous earnings provided to the court. In the case at bar, I note the stark absence of any evidence that points to the length of his incapacitation, whether his injuries will permanently affect his earning capacity, whether he is qualified/fit to do another job. The task of using the multiplier/multiplicand approach is impossible, given the insufficiency of the evidence which has handicapped the court from calculating a figure. With this in mind, I am guided by the Court of Appeal decision of Thomas v Ford et al 19 where Kangaloo JA noted: In my view the appellant is entitled to an award for loss of future earnings. Such awards are made where a claimant demonstrates that there is a continuing loss of earnings which is attributable to the accident. It is usually computed using the multiplier/multiplicand method where the court assess the expected period of incapacity to derive a multiplier which represent the discounted length of the claimant s expected working life. This figure is then applied to a multiplicand which represents the claimant s annual net loss. However there are recognized instances where a court is entitled to disregard this conventional approach and arrive at a lump sum figure to compensate the claimant for his future loss of earnings. This approach had traditionally been utilized in personal injuries claims involving young children, based on the case of Joyce v Yeomans [1981] 1 WLR 549. However the law is not static but continuously and constantly developing. Thus over time the principle in Joyce has been extended to claims involving adults where there are evidential uncertainties that prevent a court from using the multiplier/multiplicand method to assess damages for loss of future earnings. [Emphasis mine] 32. Smith JA went on to explain, Given the great difficulty in ascertaining the appellant s loss of earnings, the Master properly applied the lump sum method. The actual award of $40, is within the range of accepted awards in Trinidad and Tobago for this loss, namely $10, $50, See The Lawyer Volume 7 No. 6 pages and see Reshma Choon v Industrial Plant Services Ltd CV at paragraph 20. This court notes however that in 19 Thomas v Ford et al Civil App 25 of 2007 Page 14 of 16

15 Octon (an infant by his next friend Hamlett, Sylvia); Hamlett v Orr, Trinidad and Tobago Insurance Limited H.C.3278/1999, Smith J as he then was awarded a lump sum for future earnings in the sum $150, to an 11 year old. 33. The case at bar is such a case where the evidentiary difficulties justify a departure from the traditional multiplier/multiplicand method to assess the quantum of loss. Therefore, in the instant case, I am prepared to award a lump sum for loss of future earnings as, given the nature of his injuries, he would clearly have suffered such a loss. The sum of $100, is awarded under this head. INTEREST AND COSTS 34. The award of interest is discretionary and operates to compensate the litigant in personal injuries cases, for being kept out of money which ought to have been paid to him. See Jefford v Gee 20. and section 25 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. In making this award (below), I bore in mind the recent Privy Council decision of Leriche v Maurice 21 which stated that costs is calculated on the total claim, inclusive of interest. ORDER 35. It is ordered that the defendant do pay to the first and second claimants the following: To Nyeem Mohammed - i. General damages in the sum of $225, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 8 th December, 2010 to 29 th June, 2012; ii. Special damages in the sum of $299, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 8 th August, 2008 to 29 th June, 2012; iii. Loss of future earnings in the sum of $100, Jefford v Gee (1970) AC Leriche v Maurice [2008] UKPC 8 Page 15 of 16

16 To Natalia Mohammed - iv. General damages in the sum of $70, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 8 th December, 2010 to 29 th June, 2012; v. Special damages in the sum of $34, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 8 th August, 2008 to 29 th June, 2012; vi. The above sums are to be invested by the Registrar of the Supreme Court into the 2 nd Scheme of the Unit Trust Corporation on trust for the second claimant, Natalia Mohammed, until she attains the age of 18 years. vii. Costs as assessed in the sum of $62, viii. Stay of execution of 28 days. Dated 29 th June, 2012 Martha Alexander Master (Ag) Page 16 of 16