GH - GYAN v. ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CORPORATION

JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi presided over by Okyere J. by which the plaintiff's action against the defendants was dismissed.

The claim was for:

"(1) Damages for personal injuries, loss and expenses caused by the negligence of the defendants, their servant or agent in the administering of an injection on or about 11 May 1976 in the defendants' hospital.

(2) Interest thereon at 20 per cent.

(3) Costs.

[p.469]

(4) Further or other reliefs."

The facts giving rise to this action are adequately summed up by the trial judge in his judgment. There is complete agreement between the parties that the infant plaintiff did receive treatment from the defendants' hospital and suffered the paralysis alleged after the treatment. The plaintiff contends that the facts point to negligence on the part of the defendants' agent or servant who attended and treated the plaintiff when he reported for treatment at the hospital.

The basis of the charge of negligence was pleaded in paragraph (3) of the statement of claim in these words: "The said nurse was negligent in the said treatment in that he failed to follow laid down medical regulations or at all before administering the said injection." This was repeated in an amended statement of claim filed in the High Court on 14 June 1982. In this amendment the plaintiff set out particulars of further negligence as follows:

"On or about 21 September 1979 as a result of treatment received from the Orthopaedic Training Centre, Adoagyiri, Nsawam, hip flexion surgery was recommended for the plaintiff with all the specifications attached from the said Orthopaedic Training Centre. The defendants contrary to the proper directives from the said Orthopaedic Training Centre negligently performed the said operation thus further dislocating the right leg of the plaintiff. By reason of the negligence aforesaid the plaintiff sustained severe injuries to the right leg and thighs."

The amended statement of claim then proceeded to particularise the nature of injuries sustained in the "second incident." These particulars are not necessary for the purpose of this judgment. Thus the plaintiff was in no doubt as to the cause of the injury he has suffered. It was, as far as he was concerned, due to the negligence of the defendants' servant that he had been paralysed.

The defendants' defence was a complete denial of any negligence on their part. They pleaded in paragraph