EKEM v. WISEWAY CLEANERS LTD

JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS JSC

On 12 January 1979 a fatal accident occurred at the respondents' dry-cleaning establishment at Takoradi. An employee, Isaac Ekem, who the respondent claimed to have acquired requisite experience in the working of the respondent-company's laundry equipment, sustained fatal injuries while operating an extractor machine. An action for negligence and breach of statutory duty was brought by the personal representative of the deceased in the High Court, Sekondi. It failed. The present appeal is the sequel of that lack of success.

It is necessary to state briefly the working of the machine the deceased was operating, as far as can be gleaned from the record, to enable a proper assessment of the viability of the appellant's claim to [p.65] be made. The machine was a hydro-extractor which, as the name implies, extracts water from wet clothing by its high velocity revolutions. It functions this way: Wet garments are fed into a basket attached to the machine. When sufficient material has been piled into the basket it is closed firmly with its metal lid. Electric power is then switched on setting it in motion. The basket then revolves at very high speed. It seems the high velocity revolution sucks up and induces air currents to dry up the clothing in the basket. When the garments are sufficiently dry they are removed and replaced by a new set.

To this end, there is fitted to the machine an interlocking safety device and a foot-brake whose combined effect brings the machine to a stop. This is the simple process the deceased was engaged in for his livelihood and in the course of which he met his untimely end. A factory inspector, the first plaintiff witness, who inspected the machinery after the accident found "the interlocking safety device was ineffective and the foot-brake was also not working at all."

The evidence of what actually occurred at the machine site that fateful day was given by the respondent's own electrical supervisor (the first defendant witness). The appellant being a stranger to the establishment could hardly summon any worker to testify on his behalf as that would jeopardise that worker's prospects of continued service with the respondent-company. I have no doubt such a worker would be an unwilling witness if not a hostile one. The threat of dismissal is not an empty one: see Fibre Bag Manufacturing Co v Sarpong [1967] GLR 65 at 666, CA. In any case, the evidence of the electrical supervisor is to the effect that he