HASNEM ENTERPRISES LTD. v. ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF GHANA
1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Mrs. Bamford-Addo, J.S.C. (Presiding)
- Hayfron-Benjamin, J.S.C.
- Ampiah, J.S.C.
- Acquah, J.S.C.
- Atuguba, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court of Ghana appeal involves Hasnem Enterprise, a limited liability company in Cape Coast, and the Defendant Corporation, a statutory electricity supplier. After a March 21, 1981 power incident in Hasnem’s office—explosions of bulbs, smoke, and failure—workmen found a burnt break in the underground service cable supplying the building. Hasnem sued for negligence or breach of contract, seeking damages for damaged appliances and loss. The High Court dismissed; the Court of Appeal (2–1) affirmed (Essiem J.A. dissenting). On further appeal, Mrs. Bamford‑Addo J.S.C. and C. Hayfron‑Benjamin J.S.C. held res ipsa loquitur applied and, considering defendant’s admissions and witnesses (including “overloading cannot overvoltage”), inferred negligence from prior complaints and the post‑incident replacement of the cable with a larger 185mm line. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside both lower judgments, found the Defendant liable in negligence, and awarded special, loss‑of‑use, and general damages totaling ¢340,771.50, with costs across all courts.
MRS. J. BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.:
This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Hasnem Enterprise is a Limited Liability Company and the Defendants/Respondent/Respondent hereinafter referred to as Defendants is a Statutory Corporate Body, both parties doing business at Cape Coast. The Plaintiffs contracted with Defendant Corporation for the supply of electricity to their office for a fee. On 21st March 1981 the Managing Director of the Plaintiffs Company went to his office and when he switched on the lights there was an explosion of the bulbs from which smoke emitted. This resulted in power failure in the said office and damage to certain electrical appliances there. The appliances were listed in Schedule "A" and are the following:
2 Westinghouse air conditioners.
1 Indisit Frigidaire
2 D & MC Ceiling fans
2 Sanyo Electrical Standing fans
1 Transistor radio and record player
12 Fluorescent lights Complete Fittings
3 60 W Electric bulbs
1 IMB Copier II Machine
A report was made to the Defendant Corporation and workmen were despatched to the area. They found the fault to be a cut in the branch underground cable supplying electricity to the plaintiffs office which had burnt out resulting in the said cut. The main underground cable on the street was however intact.
The Plaintiffs sued Defendants for negligence or in the alternative breach of contract and claimed special and general damages. The particulars of negligence listed were eight in number and are
(a) Failing to instal fuses intended to "blow" to interrupt service from the Defendant Corporation's terminal box.
(b) Installing faulty fuses which failed to blow to interrupt service from the Defendant Corporation's terminal box.
(c) Failing to maintain or properly so to maintain the fuses so as to permit them to "blow" to interrupt service from the Defendant Corporation's terminal box.
(d) Rating fuses lighter than the current rating of the cables they are supposed to protect.
(e) Permitting the Service Cable to give way first.
(f) Failing to maintain and/or service properly the service cables leading to plaintiffs premises.
(g) Failing to regulate or properly to regulate the "load" on the service cable leading.
(h) In the alternative the Plaintiff will plead the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The Defendants admitted that there was a contract for the supply of electricity to the plaintiff's office but denied negligence. In the