EMMANUEL ROCKSON v. LIOS SHIPPING COMPANY S.A & WILTEX

DR. DATE-BAH, JSC:

On the 4th of July 2003, the plaintiff mariner filed a writ at the High Court, Sekondi, endorsed with the following claim:

“i) Order that the Cyprus affiliate F T PAW, settles the Plaintiff’s claim per the Collective Insurance Policy of International Transport Workers Federation (I.T.W.F.)

ii) 35% Interest on the sum payable from 1st November 2001 to date of payment.”

This Writ was accompanied by a Statement of Claim containing the facts set out below. Since the defendants have not filed a defence, but have rather contested the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law, this case has come to us on the basis only of the plaintiff’s averments. The facts tell a sad story, but the sadness of the story cannot legitimately be allowed to affect the correct legal analysis of the case before us.

The plaintiff mariner worked aboard the M/V Dynamic, a Greek registered vessel owned by the first defendant and sailing under a Cyprus flag. The second defendant is the correspondent agent of the first defendant in Ghana and carries on the business of marine surveyors and the verification of information relating to the staff welfare of its clients.

On or about 24th September 1999, the plaintiff, while on duty aboard the M/V Dynamic, then anchored in Beirut, sustained injuries whilst dismantling a piston in the engine room of the ship under the supervision of a Superintendent Engineer. The plaintiff contends that the first defendant failed or neglected to provide a safe system of employment for the Plaintiff on board the ship. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff could no longer continue with his work on the vessel. He was treated initially at a hospital in Beirut, but was later repatriated to Ghana, where he continued his treatment at Effia Nkwanta Hospital. The first defendant sent the plaintiff one thousand US dollars to help defray the cost of his medical treatment. His doctor at Effia Nkwanta, after examining him and treating him, wrote a report which assessed the plaintiff’s disability as an oiler merchant seaman at 65 per cent. When this report was submitted to the first defendant, it referred the plaintiff’s claim to the second defendant for processing as a Protection and Indemnity (or P & I) claim. When, after an extended series of correspondence between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff received no redress or compensation for his injuries, he caused the writ already described to be issued.

After the issue of the writ, t