Staff Reporter
WILHELMINA Kamati has said that being a Legal Shield member was instrumental in her winning a case against the Scouts of Namibia youth movement, which has been ordered to pay N$2.2 million to her after her son was viciously attacked by a pit bull terrier on the premises of the Scouts of Namibia.
The minor child, who had been ten years old at the time of the attack, had his left ear ripped off along with the skin around his head, leaving only the scalp of the skull.
Reacting to the outcome of the lawsuit, Kamati said that the legal support she received was comprehensive, covering all aspects of the litigation process.
“Being a paid-up Legal Shield member was instrumental in our case. Our legal team was diligent and well-prepared, which made a significant difference in the outcome. The expertise and the resources available through our membership were crucial in navigating the complexities of the legal system and presenting a compelling case,” Kamati said.
She added that while winning the case brings a sense of justice, it doesn’t erase the pain and trauma her family has endured.
“The damage caused by the canine attack has left permanent scars, both physically and emotionally. No amount of money can truly compensate for the suffering my child and I have experienced. This incident has deeply affected me, and I remain profoundly unhappy about the ordeal. The journey is still long as we continue with prosthesis treatment,” Kamati said.
In his judgment, Judge Orben Sibeya said that the plaintiff, Kamati, instituted action proceedings in a representative capacity as a legal guardian to her minor child. The minor child was attacked by a pit bull dog on 7 February 2020 while at the premises of the Scouts of Namibia in Tsumeb.
The pit bull is claimed to belong to or was under the control of the second defendant, Desmond Mandjalo, who was living at the premises where the boy was attacked.
Scouts said that it had no knowledge that the second defendant, Mr. Mandjalo, who was not its employee, owned, possessed, or kept a pit bull on its premises. It further denied the allegations that it negligently failed to take reasonable preventative measures to secure the pit bull from escaping its restraint or enclosure.
Mr. Mandjalo said that he kept the pit bull, which belonged to a certain Mr. Gavin Kolz, on the premises of Scouts. He further said that the children who were receiving scouts training were at all times aware that he kept a fierce dog which could bite and injure persons who entered the premises. He pleaded further that the pit bull was not left out in the open yard but was kept in a locked cage, and he did not foresee that the pit bull could break free from the cage.
In his judgment, Sibeya said that the probabilities establish that Scouts knew of the presence of the pit bull on the premises, especially after Mr. Mandjalo informed all the scouts and the children and cautioned the children of the presence of the vicious pit bull at the premises. This was communicated by letter, SMS, and through a meeting at least a week before the attack on the minor child. Sibeya added that the established evidence of the minor child that the pit bull was roaming around on the premises supports the finding that Scouts knew of the presence of the pit bull.
“The defendants owed a duty of care to the minor child to ensure that the vicious pit bull was locked away in an enclosure that would not make it a danger to the children. I further find that, with full knowledge of the fact that children carry out scouts training on the premises, the defendants failed to protect them by not securely enclosing the pit bull so that it did not harm them,” Sibeya said.
