—„Žic t”ƒn•’‘”t ‘™ne”• divided ‘ve” ”—Žin‰ ‘n ™‘”e”•ǯ ƒcti‘n•

MBABANE – Public Transport operators are divided over the judgment which depicts that they ought to properly train their employees on customer care because ultimately, they are legally liable for their actions.

7he Mudgment was passed by High &ourt -udge %ongani 6ydney 'lamini, when he sentenced to eight years each, a Nombi driver and conductor, who were accused of pushing out of a moving Nombi a female passenger, who later died.

Guilty

7he sentencing came after they were previously found guilty of culpable homicide. 2scar Methula and Machawe 1dwandwe were found guilty of Nilling 7hubelihle Maphanga after she demand ed ( from the conductor who had given her mother ( change instead of ( .

Maphanga was pushed out of the speeding Nombi and landed on the tarmac. 7he incident happened on 1o vember , .

7he High &ourt said public transport operators ought to properly train their employees on customer care because ultimately, they were legally liable for their actions. 7he court said in the coun try, the /egislature gave the sentencing court the power to consider compensa tion and restitution for loss or damages suffered as a result of criminal conduct.

Provisions

7he Mudge said this, however, would not be an ideal case to invoNe the provi sions of 6ection of the &riminal 3ro cedure and (vidence $ct, of .

6ection provides that ³,f any person has been convicted of an offence which has caused personal inMury to some other person, or damage to or loss of property belonging to some other person, the court trying the case may, after recording the conviction and upon an application made by or on behalf of the inMured party, forthwith award him compensation for such inMury, damage or loss.´

-udge 'lamini stated that, as a sub stitute to 6ection of the $ct, the family of the deceased, in particular the minor child left behind, was at liberty to consider filing a civil claim against the owner of the 7oyota 4uantum, on the basis of vicarious liability flowing from the negligible actions of the duo of the driver and the conductor.

Judgment

:hen interviewed to share their taNe on the Mudgment, some public transport operators shared differing views on the matter. %usinessman M[olisi µ:a[ola¶ Mabu]a made an e[ample that in his profession as a nurse, a Mudgment had pinned the blame on the health prac titioner on negligence, rather than the employer, that being government.

³

Policy

2n the issue of training their employ ees on customer care, Mabu]a said it was a good thing to do because they were dealing with the public and they needed to be empowered on how best to treat their customers, e[cept where there was no policy to that effect.

³(ven if we want to enrol them for customer care, how are we going to do it if there is no instrument that speaNs to that" 2ne cannot force a person to em power themselves academically, but if there is a policy that compels that person to enrol for a certain course or worNshop to possess a certain sNill, then that would be the tool to use,´ he said. Mabu]a said as public transport operators, they were not taNing lightly the incidents that occurred in their businesses, mostly due to lacN of customer care from the part of their employees. ³3ersonally, , condemn any wrongdoing by anybody in any business. :e, as transport operators, operate using permits, not licences, be cause we are part of an essential service and we ought to treat our customers in an acceptable manner,´ he said.

Condition

$nother transport operator, who spoNe on condition of anonymity, said the Mudgment was not fair on their part given that a great percentage, if not all, of the bus conductors were not hired on permanent basis, but were worNing on a temporary basis and changed the vehicles freTuently. ³My taNe is that it should be mandatory for bus conductors to taNe up a short course on customer care as the Mudge put it and then legislation and regu lations that govern the public trans