To answer issue No. 3 : the plaintiff’s right to privacy was not infringed when the 205 photograph was taken in a public space but his right to privacy was infringed when his image was published on a billboard without his consent . Therefore the right to privacy outweighed the defendant’s freedom of expression. 2. Remedies. The plaintiff prayed for general damages for the use of the photograph and psychological 210 torture; punitive damages for violation of the right to privacy, a permanent injunction restraining the further use of the image by the defendant and an order to remove the image from the billboard and costs. The purpose of damages in the law of tort is to compensate the plaintiff . SCCA No. 8 of 1999 Robert Coussens v Attorney General refers. The principle for assessing damages in 215 torts is that in as much as possible, the plaintiff is placed in the position he was in before the injury or loss occurred. I will adopt the same approach in assessing damages for infringement of a human right. The plaintiff complained his life was put at risk because his friends thought he had been paid by the defendant for the advert. I find this alleged injury speculative and without basis. None 220 of the witnesses said the plaintiff’s life was at risk except for the plaintiff himself. With respect to the stress he felt as a result of comments from his colleagues, the plaintiff was not captured in an embarrassing situation and the words that accompanied the picture were aimed at promoting the defendant in a positive way. The words ‘Seeing through your ears countrywide coverage and clear signal’ do not import a derogatory innuendo about the 225 plaintiff. In summary, the plaintiff suffered only infringement of his privacy rights per se which attracts nominal damages. I am reluctant to adopt the approach to assessment of damages in the Asege case because the facts there in were different. In the premises, I will award nominal damages for infringement of the right to privacy in the 230 sum of 40,000,000/. As to punitive damages, the principle for assessment of these damages is to punish a defendant for flagrant disregard of the plaintiff’s human rights. In the instant case, the image was incidentally captured as part of a scenery of public space . 8