BAIDEN v. SOLOMON

JUDGMENT OF CRABBE J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of Charles J.1 whereby he awarded to the plaintiff the sum of £G2,300 as compensation to the dependants of Theresa Jona Solomon (deceased) who died as a result of the negligent driving of the defendant.

In his writ of summons the plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of Theresa Jona Solomon (deceased), claimed from the defendant the sum of £G4,212 for the negligence resulting in the death of the deceased. The statement of claim filed amplified the negligence alleged and then set out the basis of the claim in the following paragraphs:

"4. The action is brought on behalf of the plaintiff, and on behalf of the following dependants.

(a) Josephine Solomon, born on the 9th January, 1955;

(b) Emmanuel Solomon, born on the 10th June, 1957;

(c) Patrick L. Kobina Solomon, born on the 22nd July, 1958.

5. The said Theresa Jona Solomon was immediately prior to the said accident, aged 28 years, and was employed as a school teacher by the Catholic Educational Unit, at a salary of £G295 per annum. She was the sole support of the aforementioned dependants who by her death have lost such support.

PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES

(a) Funeral expenses incurred £G82

(b) Damages for the said dependants for 14 years loss of salary at £G295 per annum £G4,130

(c) Total damages claimed £G4,212"

Although the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846,2 of the United Kingdom as amended by the Law Reform (Civil Wrongs) Act, 1959,3 of Ghana was not pleaded there can be no doubt on the face of the pleadings that this action was brought under section 3 (1) (b) of the latter enactment.

[p.491]

The notice of appeal originally filed contained the following grounds:

"(a) that the learned trial judge was wrong in refusing defendant-appellant to adduce evidence in disclaiming liability.

(b) that the learned trial judge erred in holding that the defendant-appellant counsel's open pronouncement in court for a settlement without prejudice amounted to an estoppel or admission of negligence on the part of the defendant.

(c) that the learned trial judge misdirected himself as to the legal effect of the words ‘without prejudice.’

(d) that the damages awarded were too excessive."

On the first day of the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant asked the leave of the court to argue an additional ground of appeal contained in a notice which had been filed shortly before the court sat that morning. This ground was stated in t