GHANA TEXTILES MANUFACTURING CO. LTD v. SAFETECH

J U D G M E N T

OFOE, J.A.

My brother Isaac Douse has presented the opinion of this court and I am in agreement with him. I am also of the opinion that apart from ground (a) as it relates to the number of copper rollers stolen and its value and ground of appeal (b), all other grounds of appeal should be dismissed. By this opinion I am questioning the trial court’s findings of fact as it relates to these areas of the appeal. Her appreciation and assessment of the facts of the case to the law on burden of prove as applied by the authorities I find inappropriate and I will demonstrate presently.

Brief of the undisputed facts of the case should suffice. Plaintiff is a textile manufacturing firm and the defendant a security company that provides guard security and other security services. The parties have an agreement by which the defendant was to provide security services for the plaintiff yard in Tema. The contract is dated November 2005. On the 10th 0f November 2006 theft was committed in the yard of the defendant occasioning loss of copper rollers. Whilst the plaintiff claims 230 pieces were stolen the defendant says an unspecified number got lost. The defendant alleges that the loss arose out of arm robbery and not ordinary theft. Earlier losses in the yard which the plaintiff is also claiming are loss of roofing sheets and headlights of a forklift. At the end of trial the trial judge found the defendant liable for negligence in the performance of their security duties, found them liable for the lose of the value of the copper rollers and ordered the defendant to replace the stolen roofing sheets. The value of the copper rollers the trial judge accepted as Gh450, 000. The counterclaim for contributory negligence which the defendant filed was dismissed by the trial judge. It is against these decisions that the appeal has been lodged.

The grounds of appeal filed are:

a) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

b) The Learned Judge erred in holding that the demand for inventory records was a request for proof beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore ought to be rejected as the trial was not a criminal trial.

c) The Learned Judge erred in granting a relief the Plaintiff had not claimed by awarding interest to the Plaintiff from 10th November, 2006.

d) The Learned Judge erred in granting a relief the Plaintiff had not claimed by ordering the Defendant to give to Plaintiff, 22 roofing sheets of the same quality as those on the warehouse after she