2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant's appeal against the judgment of the High Court was primarily grounded on issues of alleged negligence and unlawfulness in the detention of respondent’s boat. The court found the Navy negligent and the detention unlawful, adjusting damages awarded for loss and replacement to Gh¢82,000.00 and Gh¢60,000.00 respectively. The Navy's powers and responsibilities under the Fisheries Act 625 were central to the judgment.
HONYENUGA, J.A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 23rd day of August 2010.
The said court granted the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff/respondent with costs of GH¢5,000.00 against the defendants/appellants.
In this appeal, the defendants/appellants would be referred to as the appellant and the plaintiff/respondent as the respondent.
The facts of this appeal are that the respondent’s wooden fishing vessel CRF 186 was returning from fishing with PW1 Annan Tetteh, a fitter and PW3 Philip Tetteh, the Captain on board the vessel.
Sub Lieutenant King Adu Kow Nkrumah DW1 who was in charge of Naval Patrol Boat GNS David Hanson was on patrol when he saw CRF 1 86 and other boats and he ordered them to stop for inspection.
CRF 186 obeyed the command but another boat No. 148 run away.
GNS David Hanson gave a hot chase to No. 148 but could not arrest it.
GNS David Hanson returned to where CRF 186 had stopped.
There was an incident between the wooden vessel CRF 186 and the metal Naval boat which resulted into serious damage to the wooden vessel.
The incident was viewed by PW2 Kofi Panin Yena while ashore.
After the incident, GNS David Hanson gave a chase to the CRF 186 to the Harbour where Naval personnel under the instructions of DW1 towed the boat to the Naval base where it stayed until it sunk.
After CRF 186 sunk, the plaintiff as owner caused a writ of summons to be issued against the defendants claiming as follows:- “… general and special damages for the negligence of the Western Naval Command patrol boat which led to serious damage to the plaintiff’s boat No. CRF 186 which eventually sunk.
b) A declaration that the arrest and detention of the boat was unlawful”. The appellants entered appearance and caused a statement of defence to be filed while the respondent filed a reply thereto.
The following issues were listed and taken during the application for
“a) Whether or not the crew men of the 2nd Defendant were negligent in crashing into plaintiff’s boat No. CRF 186.
b) Whether or not the plaintiff’s workmen refused to stop when ordered by the crew men of the 2nd defendant to do so.
c) Whether or not the plaintiff’s workmen were committing a crime on the high seas when apprehended by the crew men of 2nd defendant.
d) Whether or not the arrest and subsequent detention of the plaintiff’s boat was lawful.
e) Whether or not the generators and high powered lights allegedly found on plaintiff’s boat were used fo