Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
July 3, 1972
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
The plaint of the plaintiff in his writ reads as follows;
"The plaintiff's claim is for damages for loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of a breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendant. Further or in the alternative the plaintiff's claim is for damages for loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the negligence and/or breach of duty on the part of the defendant and/or his servants."
A statement of claim accompanied the writ of summons. In the course of addresses Mr. Amua Sekyi, counsel for the plaintiff, intimated to the court and to counsel for the defendant Mr. Cann that he would not pursue his claim based on a breach of statutory duty. This in effect means that the first limb of the plaintiff's claim has been abandoned, and the plaintiff's claim has been fought on negligence.
The plaintiff's case is that in the early hours of 1 January 1969, his driver the plaintiff's first witness was driving his taxi-cab No. WR 6511 along the Axim road towards the Atlantic Hotel direction when a horse suddenly emerged from the near side of the road and collided with it, causing damage to it. The plaintiff is therefore claiming ¢1,640.45 as the estimated cost of repairs to his vehicle and ¢6.00 per day as loss of earnings from date of the accident to the date of judgment. Counsel for the plaintiff, in view of the decision in West African Bakery v. Miezah [1972] 1 G.L.R. 78, C.A., told the court to consider loss of earnings for a reasonable period within which the taxi-cab could have been repaired
The defendant was the owner of the horse. The decision in this case, however, turns on whether or not the defendant or his servant was negligent in the control of the horse. The defendant has denied negligence, and the burden to establish breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant was clearly cast on the plaintiff. In attempting to prove this the driver of the taxi-cab, the plaintiff's first witness, testified as follows:
"I was driving the plaintiff's taxi-cab No. W/R 6511 on the Axim road towards Atlantic Hotel direction. As I got near Kalmoni Workshop on Axim road, I saw a horse which jumped suddenly from my near side into the road and hit my taxi-cab. I became unconscious and was taken to hospital. My taxi-cab was damaged by the horse. I regained consciousness within one hour after the accident. There was no one riding the horse at the time; it came to the road alone."
[p.432]
The plaint
AI Generated Summary
On January 1, 1969, a taxi-cab (No. WR 6511) owned by the plaintiff collided with a horse near Kalmoni Workshop on Axim Road. The horse belonged to the defendant and had been kept overnight in a stable behind the Princess Cinema, where the defendants horse-boy, Abdulai Mamprusi, testified he tethered the horse to an iron rod and locked an iron door with a padlock. The plaintiff abandoned his statutory duty claim and pursued negligence, seeking repair costs and lost earnings. Evidence conflicted: a police constable described the stable as a large empty box without lock, though his earlier criminal-trial testimony mentioned an iron bar and a lock; the horse-boy gave detailed measurements and said he found the padlock broken and equipment stolen the next morning. Distinguishing duties concerning animals on and off the highway, the court found the escape resulted from an unauthorised third party’s act and that the defendant took reasonable precautions. The claim was dismissed with costs, and nominal damages and limited lost earnings were assessed contingently in case of reversal on appeal.