ANDREW DAGARTI v. STATE GOLD MINING CORPORATION

JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.

The plaintiff issued a writ of summons claiming N¢10,000.00 damages for injury to his right leg which was subsequently amputated as a result of the negligence of the defendants on 15 November 1965.

The defendants denied liability in their statement of defence and applied to the court under Order 25, rr. 2 and 3 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the ground that the plaintiff had been paid compensation amounting to N¢807.77 under the agreement between the parties made on 23 March 1967 and that as the plaintiff did not take steps within three months as provided in section 15 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), to cancel the said agreement, he could not maintain the present action which is statute-barred.

The defendants in support of their application, exhibited the agreement signed by the parties marked A at the bottom of which appears a certificate issued with the designation "District Labour Officer" on it to the effect that section 15 (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), has been complied with.

The plaintiff in opposition to the defendants' motion under Order 25 rr. 2 and 3, filed an affidavit in which he denied that he entered into an agreement on 23 March 1967 as alleged by the defendants. He maintained that on the day in question he was paid a sum of ¢807.77 when he was called to the labour officer at Tarkwa. He was given the money and was asked to put his thumbprint on a certain paper by a clerk. Before he made his thumbprint nobody [p.544] had told him what the paper contained. He further swore that even it the contents were revealed to him, he did not understand because he did not understand Twi or English which the officers in the labour office spoke. He is a Dagarti and speaks that language but he was not accompanied by any Dagarti man who speaks Twi or English to the labour office when the money was paid. The plaintiff in his affidavit finally averred that when he made his thumbprint he was under an impression that he was giving a receipt for the amount paid to him and therefore the agreement dated 23 March 1967 cannot be his act and deed.

After hearing the parties, I demanded further affidavits from the defendants. Three affidavits were filed subsequently. One of these additional affidavits was sworn to by one Awuni Frafra, a headman in charge of the gang to which the plaintiff belonged in the mining pit. A