JAMES ACKON v. ABOSSO GOLDFIELDS LTD.

TORKORNOO (MRS) JSC:-

Background

The plaintiff/respondent/appellant (hereafter referred to as Plaintiff) worked for the defendant/appellant/respondent (defendant) from November 2010 to March 2014. On 4th March 2014, he was diagnosed with chronic glaucoma, with the evaluation that it is not likely that his vision would improve. The records show that in October 2013, a clinic that attended to the defendant’s employees had recommended that the plaintiff should be taken off night shifts and placed on day shifts, as a result of the ailing condition of his eyes.

Following the termination of his employment as a result of a redundancy exercise in March 2014, he commenced the present action in September 2014 for the following relief:

‘The plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for damages for loss sustained by him as a result of the negligent and/or breach of statutory duty of the defendant whilst employed by the defendant as a dozer operator in the mining department.’

Pleadings

In his Statement of Claim, he averred that the diagnosis of his ailment stated that he had developed ‘reduced acuities in both eyes’ and ‘optic nerve head damage due to exposure to toxic chemicals’. He alleged the following ‘Particulars of negligence and or Breach of statutory duty’ against the defendant:

a.Exposing the plaintiff to risks of damage or injury of which the defendant knew or ought to have known.

b.Failing to secure the safety of the plaintiff.

c.Failing to take any or any adequate precautions for the safety of the plaintiff while he has engaged on his duties.

d.Failing to provide or maintain any or any proper or safe system of working at the mines.

e.Failing to provide the plaintiff with adequate and suitable appliances and in particular with any or any suitable protective gadgets to enable him to carry out the said work in safety or to protect the eyes of the plaintiff while he was carrying out the said work.

f.Failure to provide adequate supervision for the plaintiff.

In its Statement of Defence, the defendant denied every material allegation of fact and proposition of law in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. It averred that it was clear that the Plaintiff had not been in any accident while working, and that medical examination indicated that the chronic glaucoma suffered by plaintiff was a non-occupational illness. Further, at all times during the course of his employment, plaintiff was provided with the necessary personal protective equipment including e