ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR v. DOROTHY APPIAH

INTRODUCTION

[1] My Lords, this appeal, brought by the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police (hereafter “the Appellants”), concerns a single, narrow, but important question: whether the High Court, Human Rights Division, erred in principle when it assessed and awarded general damages in the sum of GH¢1,000,000 to the Plaintiff/Respondent, a minor who suffered catastrophic and permanent injuries during a police shoot-out on 7th June 2016. By a writ of summons issued in 2016, the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereafter “the Respondent”), suing through her guardian ad litem, claimed against the Defendants/Appellants jointly and severally the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that the Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty of care, which duty of care had negligently been breached by the Defendants. b. A declaration that the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff were the result of the Defendants’ negligence. c. An order directing the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff GH¢2,000,000.00 as compensation for the permanent disability suffered as a result of the Defendants’ negligence. d. Special damages in the amount of GH¢20,000.00. e. Legal fees and costs.

[2] The judgment appealed from was delivered on 18th May 2022. Before that date, liability had already been conclusively determined against the Appellants by an interlocutory judgment upon admission, which was unopposed. Thus, the only question left for the High Court was the assessment of damages. Upon a careful evaluation of the medical evidence, the Respondent’s testimony, and the factual circumstances of the incident, the trial judge awarded GH¢1,000,000 as general damages, GH¢2,560.95 as special damages, and GH¢30,000 as costs.

[3] The Appellants now challenge only the general damages award, contending that it is excessive, arbitrary, unjustified, and against the weight of evidence. The Respondent, for her part, invites this Court not merely to affirm the award but contends that, given the magnitude and permanency of her disability—supported by uncontroverted neurosurgical and medical findings—the award made by the trial court is both appropriate and, in truth, modest.

[4] Having set out the salient features of the appeal in this introductory segment, we proceed to outline the factual antecedents in fuller detail before addressing the legal and evidential issues arising for determination.

BACKGROUND AND MATTERS NOT IN DISPUTE

[5] The essential factual matrix