AGBEDOR AND ANOTHER v. YEBOA

JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.A.

The plaintiffs-appellants (hereafter referred to as the appellants) claimed general damages against the defendant-respondent (hereafter referred to as the respondent) for the negligence of one Gariba Abudulai, a driver of a vehicle allegedly belonging to the respondent. The basis of the claim was that, on or about 8 December 1974, one Simon Moses Modzaka was a passenger on that vehicle. On reaching a place called Kyekyewere Village, the vehicle skidded off its lane into an off-side lane. Simon [p.771] Modzaka, a lad of twenty years met with his death on the spot. The claim was thus for loss of expectation of life and loss of prospective dependency.

The learned trial judge gave judgment for the appellants as the administrators of the estate of Simon Moses Modzaka for a total sum of ¢2,200. This was made up of ¢600 for mental distress and ¢1,500 for loss of expectation of life. Costs of ¢100 were also awarded. The substance of the appeal before this court is that the learned trial judge erred in dismissing the claim for prospective dependency. The learned trial judge in her judgment stated:

“In this case, it is the life of a twenty-year old youngman who had the whole of his life ahead of him; he was on the threshold of making his life. He had not reached the age to have settled prospects. It is not known whether he would have married or what he intended to do with his life. As he had just obtained . . . qualifications . . . one may safely say that he might have become a technician and would. have enjoyed a reasonable life. But it is not by any means a case where the maximum award should be given, because his future had not become definite and it cannot be said with certainty that a twenty-year old boy who had just obtained these two certificates had good prospects of a happy and contented life. A moderate figure should therefore be awarded. I think ¢1,500 is a moderate figure to award for loss of expectation of life.”

With this assessment, I agree. But to an extent. Indeed, counsel for the appellants did not wish to belabour any arguments as to the adequacy of that award. I would thus not press the point. His quarrel, however, was with the dismissal by the learned trial judge of the claim for prospective dependency.

Nor were any arguments raised as to the statutory validity of the award of ¢600 for mental distress. The respondent was not present in court. He was not represented by counsel either. The provisions of secti