Kwame Atta v. Israel Quao and Diana Quao (Mrs.)

P. K. GYAESAYOR J. A:

This is an appeal, against the decision of the High Court, Accra dated 1st April 2008. By the decision of the High Court, the defendant/appellants are to pay to the plaintiff a total amount of GH¢9, 993. 30 as contained in the entry of judgment which can be found on page 54 of the record of appeal.

The break down is as follows: -1. GH¢4, 300. 80 being workers compensation due to plaintiff as a result of injures sustained in the course of his employment.

2. GH¢5, 193. 00 being interest of 23% from January 2003 to April 2008. 3. GH¢500 being cost awarded.

The facts of the case are simple.

The appellants engaged the services of plaintiff at their bakery known as Isdee Bakery Enterprise situated at Atico, Accra.

After some eight months he was asked to start working on the milling machine.

Unfortunately on the 22nd day of December 2002, the left hand of the plaintiff was trapped by the milling machine and crushed while operating the milling machine at the request of the defendant/appellants.

Inspite of this, the plaintiff/respondent continued to work with the appellants for another three years until a misunderstanding arose between them whereupon the plaintiff reported the matter of his injury to the labour officer.

An invitation extended to the appellant by the labour officer was not honoured as a result of which plaintiff took action in the High Court, Accra claiming: -1. An amount of ¢53, 760 being workmen’s compensation claim due to the respondent as a result of the incapacity suffered from injury arising out of the course of respondent’s employment with the appellants.

2. A further claim of ¢200, 000, 000 being damages, pain and suffering suffered by the respondent as a result of the appellants’ negligent act.

3. Interest on all claims at the prevailing bank interest rate from January, 2003 to date of payment.

4. Cost of the suit.

The learned trial judge after a full trial rejected the claim for damages on account that she did not find negligence on the part of the appellant but agreed that plaintiff/respondent was entitled to workmen’s compensation and interest. The appellants in this appeal claim they are dissatisfied with the whole judgment.

In the notice of appeal filed, the following have been set down as the grounds of appeal: -a. The judgment is against the evidence, adduced at the trial.

The plaintiff, was not a “workman”, within the meaning, letter or spirit, of the workmen’s compensation Act, 1975 and or i