JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.
The plaintiff claims damages against the defendants for:
"injury and consequential loss caused by the negligent driving of one Ofori Yaw as servant or agent of both or either the defendants in driving the motor vehicle bearing registration number CR 100 and or by the breach by both defendants or either of them of statutory duty under section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958."
[p.343]
The second defendant could not be found for service on him of the writ and the action was prosecuted only in respect of the first defendant.
On the amended statement of claim the plaintiff set out the following particulars:
"(1) That on the date of the accident, 14 December 1962, he was a passenger for reward on vehicle No. CR 100 belonging to both defendants.
(2) That the vehicle was in charge of and being driven by one Ofori Yaw.
(3) Through the negligence of Ofori Yaw in the course of his employment, vehicle No. CR 100 collided with a stationary vehicle on the road, left the road and went in a ditch whereby the plaintiff sustained injury. The plaintiff gave particulars of the negligence of Ofori Yaw and also relied on the maxim res ipsa loquitur.
(4) Ofori Yaw used the vehicle on the road without there being in force in relation to the said user a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks. Both defendants caused or permitted the uninsured user contrary to section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958).
(5) Neither Ofori Yaw nor Atta Botsi, the second defendant, was at any material time possessed of any means with which to pay any sum in respect of the damages payable to the plaintiff by reason of the said accident.
(6) Ofori Yaw was the servant or agent of both or either defendant acting in the course of his employment or within the scope of his authority or agency and acted with the permission of both or either defendant as owners of vehicle No. CR 100."
The first defendant in his statement of defence denied all these allegations in the plaintiff's statement of claim. In particular he denied that Ofori Yaw was his servant or agent, or that the plaintiff was carried for reward to him as a passenger on vehicle No. CR 100 and further denied that he was the owner of vehicle No. CR 100 at the material time. The first defendant contended that he had sold the said vehicle No. CR 100 to the second defendant on a "work and pay" basis and that the second defendant was the owner
