<p class="ql-align-justify">JUDGMENT</p><p class="ql-align-justify">Apaloo JA The only question which fell for consideration in this appeal, is whether on the uncontroverted facts, the learned judge applied the law correctly when he absolved the 1st respondent company from vicarious liability for the negligence of the 1st respondent.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">The 1st defendant is a partnership of two brothers. The firm owned a VW saloon car KJY 307. This car was normally driven by Zainul Dar who was an employee of the firm and a son of one of the partners. Sometime in November 1982, Zainul noticed some dents on the car. He thought they should be panel-beaten and sprayed. The normal place where this work should have been undertaken, was the well-established motor company of Cooper Motors Corporation.</p><p class="ql-align-justify">Zainul thought as it was not really major work and also to economise, these minor repairs should be entrusted to the 2nd respondent, a spraypainter employed by Cooper Motors who did spray-painting in his spare time. The 2nd respondent agreed to undertake the work for a consid…</p>