DECISION OF THE SESSIONS COURT (“SC”)

• The SC found PLUS and PROPEL 80% liable, and the deceased 20% contributorily negligent for the accident.
  
  
• PLUS and PROPEL were not happy with the decision and appealed to the High Court.

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (“HC”)

• The HC held PLUS, as the concessionaire, has a statutory duty under Section 5 of the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 to maintain the highway in good repair and condition.
  
  
• PLUS owed a duty of care to users to keep the highway safe, and the lack of lighting and presence of foreign objects made the road dangerous. PLUS failed to take reasonable steps such as installing street lights or promptly removing hazards.
  
  
• PROPEL was also found liable for their failure to maintain the Highway.
  
  
• The appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court decision was upheld.
  
  
• PLUS and PROPEL were not happy and appealed to the Court of Appeal

DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL (“COA”)

• The COA held that PLUS owed a duty to maintain the highway safely, and that the harm to the highway users was reasonably foreseeable.
  
  
• Further, the COA stated that PLUS’s duty cannot be delegated to their contractor because highway maintenance involved hazardous operations which affected public safety.
  
  
• The COA also stated that there was a failure to take reasonable care as merely deploying PLUSRonda patrols every 45-50 minutes was insufficient especially since the area was unlit. Installing street lighting was a reasonable preventive measure.
  
  
• The COA upheld the decision that PLUS and PROPEL were 80% liable for the accident.
  
  
• The COA also recommended that a reasonable course of action would be for PLUS to install street lighting at intervals of, for instance 300 metres or another distance deemed appropriate, in accordance with established engineering practice.