JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.
The defendant in this case was a lorry driver and was such in September 1960. On the 26th September that year, he was in charge of a Bedford lorry No. AS 6630. He was involved in an accident on that day at a place called Apatrapa junction on the Kumasi-Sunyani road. As a result of that accident, one John Mensah who rode on that lorry met his death.
By his pleadings, the plaintiff who is the administrator of the estate of the deceased, claims that that accident was due to the negligent driving of the defendant. This averment the latter admits. Accordingly, the plaintiff in his capacity as such administrator, claims damages for the benefit of the estate of the aforesaid deceased. In view of the nature of the argument addressed to me by counsel for the plaintiff, I must quote the title of the suit and the endorsement on the writ. It is as follows:
"Kwaku Addae of Atimatim for and on behalf of the Estate of John Mensah (deceased)" and "Kwaku Ntim of house M.E. 95, Kumasi
"The plaintiff's claim is as the administrator of the estate of John Mensah deceased, for three thousand Ghana pounds (£G3,000) being damages for the death of the said John Mensah from injuries received by the negligence of the defendant while a passenger on defendant's vehicle No. AS 6630."
This writ was issued on the 19th September, 1961. On the 14th October of the same year, a statement of claim was lodged. The statement merely elaborates the writ and states the circumstances leading to the deceased's death. Paragraph 6 of the statement gives the deceased's age as 24 years and avers that he was married and there was a child en ventre sa mere at the date of his death. Nowhere was it mentioned that the action was being taken for the benefit of these two, namely, the wife and the posthumous child. It seems to me plain that they were merely mentioned as a circumstance that should be taken into consideration in qualifying the unliquidated damages claimed.
It is clear therefore that this action was to all intents and purposes a common law claim pure and simple. The plaintiff as administrator of the deceased sought to perpetuate the latter's existence and claim damages for the injuries which resulted in his death for the expressed purpose of benefiting his estate. In the case of El-Rouh v. Hamili,1 I held in my ruling of the 11th May, 1962, that an action such as this was not maintainable at common law and was barred by the actio personalis moritur cum persona rule. I f
