Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 25, 1971
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.
In this case the respondent's claim was (1) a demand against the appellant for the repair of his Bedford lorry No. AN 906, which was damaged through the negligence of one Joseph Ekow Jabin, a servant or agent of the Ghana National Fire Service stationed at Sekondi, a department of the Ministry of the Interior; and (2) for the loss of profits at the rate of N¢10.00 per diem from 5 June 1966 until such date as the repairs would be completed. Under section 10 of the State Proceedings Act, 1961 (Act 51), the Attorney-General is the person to sue for the liabilities of the Ghana National Fire Service.
The facts are these: The respondent was the owner of Bedford lorry No. AN 906 and he had employed, as the driver of this vehicle, one George Quayson. The Ghana National Fire Service was, at all material times, the owner of vehicle No. WR 2745, and the driver employed to drive the said vehicle was one Joseph Ekow Jabin. It was alleged that on or about 5 June 1966, whilst the respondent's driver was driving vehicle No. AN 906 from Sekondi towards Ketan along the Sekondi-Kojokrom road, the said Joseph Ekow Jabin negligently drove vehicle No. WR 2745 into the respondent's vehicle, and caused extensive damage to it. The next day after the accident, the Ghana National Fire Service removed the respondent's vehicle to their garage in Sekondi for the purpose of repairing it. At the date of the hearing of this action, the respondent's vehicle had not been repaired, although it was still standing at the garage of the Ghana National Fire Service.
The appellant denied that the driver of the Ghana National Fire Service, Joseph Ekow Jabin, was negligent, and it was further contended that the said driver was at the time of the accident not driving in the normal course of his business. With regard to the removal of the respondent's vehicle to the garage of the Ghana National Fire Service, it was said that this was done with a view to preventing litigation, and that it was not an admission of liability. In one passage in his judgment the learned trial judge said, "The two main issues to be determined are whether or not Joseph Ekow Jabin was negligent; and whether or not he drove vehicle No. WR 2745 in the course of his employment. Both issues are questions of fact to be determined by the court after careful evaluation of the evidence." I think the learned trial judge showed, in this passage, a proper appreciation of the real issues in the case. The le
AI Generated Summary
The respondent, owner of Bedford lorry AN 906 driven by George Quayson, sued the Attorney-General under section 10 of the State Proceedings Act, 1961 (Act 51) after GNFS driver Joseph Ekow Jabin collided with GNFS vehicle WR 2745 near Sekondi–Kojokrom on 5 June 1966, seeking repairs and daily lost profits. The trial judge found Jabin negligent and acting in the course of his employment. On appeal, Azu Crabbe J.A. identified the determinative issue—course of employment—and applied vicarious liability principles and Diplock J.’s practical test from Hilton: Was the servant doing what he was employed to do? Evidence showed Jabin used the GNFS vehicle to take a relieved driver home for wake-keeping without permission, contrary to departmental instructions, and GNFS had no business at Ketan. The Court of Appeal held Jabin was not on official duty, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and awarded costs; Apaloo J.A. and Jiagge J.A. concurred.