JOANA EWURABENA OCRAN v. AMORT SECURITY SERVICES LTD

J U D G M E N T

OFOE,J.A:

This appeal we will refer to the plaintiff/appellant as the plaintiff as she was in the trial High Court and the defendant/ respondent also as the defendant.

The case of the parties that governed the trial and the judgment in the trial court can be stated tersely as follows:

The plaintiff was in need of security for her shops which are located in the environs of East Legon. For that purpose, she contacted the defendant who agreed and posted one security guard to surveil the shop over the night, 6pm to 6am. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff paid GHC400 every month. Unfortunately, on the 31st of May 2016 plaintiff was informed that burglars during the night had broken into the shop and stolen some items from the shop. Since she expected the security guard to have alerted occupants of the area or anybody who could be of assistance to ward of the intrusion but did not, plaintiff concluded that the security guard was negligent in his assignment and therefore the defendant company for whom he works should be responsible in atoning for the loss arising out of the burglary. Why would the plaintiff insist that the guard was negligent she provided in paragraph 13 to15 of her statement of claim. We will come back with details of this pleadings in the course of this judgment.

Mention is also made in her pleadings of the fact that the guard was prosecuted but acquitted and discharged

What loss was occasioned the plaintiff is provided in paragraph 17 and 18 of the particulars of claim totaling GH¢458,500.00. The stolen items include assorted wax print, laces, kente, dresses and jewelry.

To make for the loss she sued the defendant claiming

“1. Recovery of all the items stolen from the shop of the plaintiff or in default payment for the total cost of the items

2. Damages for breach of agreement to continue to provide security services to the shops of the plaintiff.

3. Cost including lawyer’s fees

4. Any other reliefs deemed fit by the honorable court”

The defendant company on its part in her defence created the impression that even though there was agreement to provide a guard what was provided was a temporary measure since it was understood that the plaintiff will come back to the company for a formal written contract. She did not come back and therefore there was no written contract which would have entitled the defendant to take inventory of the items to be protected in the shop. It however had a bare knowledge of the glas