BENEDICTA QUAO v. CHRISTIAN ACTION FAITH MINISTRY
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JENNIFER DODOO (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Insurance Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court negligence action arose from a 13 January 2013 collision near the Accra Shopping Mall involving Defendant Church’s International Bus GS 9221-09, a Toyota Camry, and Plaintiff Benedicta Quao’s Kia Rondo. Quao and her children were injured and her Kia was declared beyond economic repair. She sought GH¢50,000 as replacement value, GH¢150 per day for loss of use, interest, and costs; the Defendant denied negligence and alleged fraud. The police testing officer confirmed mechanical brake failure, not intoxication or speed. Applying the Evidence Act’s burdens, the Court held negligence unproven and vicarious liability for negligence inapplicable. Plaintiff had comprehensive insurance (GH¢22,500) and was paid GH¢20,250, barring double recovery. Nonetheless, the Court awarded GH¢4,000 as loss-of-use expenses until the insurance payout, with interest, and assessed costs of GH¢10,000 against the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
The pleadings of the parties to this suit show that a road traffic accident involving their vehicles occurred on 13th January 2013. The Plaintiff who described herself as a Consultant and Lecturer, claimed against the Defendant, a Church, the following reliefs:
a. GH¢50,000.00 being the value of the damaged vehicle.
b. Damages for loss of the vehicle being GH¢150 per day from the date of the accident being January 13, 2013 to date of replacement of vehicle or date of final payment
c. Interest on damages from date of judgment till date of final payment.
d. Costs, including legal costs.
It was the Plaintiff’s case that on the day of the incident, the Defendant’s driver who was in charge of the Defendant’s vehicle negligently drove into her vehicle crushing it and damaging it beyond repair. The particulars of negligence were listed as:
a. He hit the Plaintiff from the rear
b. He drove too fast.
c. He was under the influence of alcohol.
d. Failed to keep a proper look out
e. Failed to stop, to slow down, to swerve or in any other way so to control the bus as to avoid hitting the Plaintiff’s car from the rear or at all.
It was her case that she and her children who were in the car with her suffered various degrees of injury and were traumatized in the process. It was her case that due to the injuries she had suffered, she had been experiencing excruciating pains in her back. The Defendant had failed to replace her vehicle and that she had had to incur huge expenses in hiring a taxi to transport her children to school and herself to work.
The Defendant denied any negligence and said the accident was not as a result of any act of commission or omission of its driver but rather due to circumstances beyond his control. The Defendant denied the contention that its driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the said accident. According to the Defendant, the Police advised both parties to make a claim with their respective insurers as neither party was at fault. It contended that the Plaintiff made a claim on her insurers as her vehicle was comprehensively insured and that the claim was fully settled. It therefore accused the Plaintiff of seeking to commit fraud by making claims against it. The Defendant gave the particulars of fraud as being:
a. The Plaintiff seeking to recover the cost of replacing the said damaged vehicle which insurers had already settled and paid to the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff instituted this instant ac