MAHAMA v. KOTIA AND OTHERS
1989
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AMPIAH
- LAMPTEY
- ESSIEM JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1989
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
At the High Court in Tamale, a woman sued after defendants wrongfully entered her land, demolished her house and surrounding walls, and removed iron rods later used to build the Yendi Mosque. The trial judge found no lawful authority for the demolition and awarded damages totaling ¢950,000 plus costs. On appeal, the defendants conceded lack of authority and challenged only the quantum of ordinary and exemplary damages and the costs. Writing for the Court of Appeal, Ampiah J.A. applied the principle that appellate courts intervene in damages awards only when they are out of all proportion. He affirmed a replacement value of ¢594,000 based on Mr. Dudu‑Anquah’s valuation (exhibit F) and upheld ¢300,000 in exemplary damages given the spiteful conduct and loss of use. He set aside ¢56,000 for iron rods due to lack of proof and upheld the costs, dismissing the appeal.
JUDGEMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.
In her action before the High Court, Tamale the plaintiff claimed against the defendants jointly and severally ¢2,000,000 general and special damages for wrongfully entering her land and breaking down her building and the surrounding walls. On 3 July 1985 the learned trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff and awarded her a [p.26] total of ¢950,000 with costs of ¢100.00 against the defendants. It is against this decision that the defendants have brought this appeal.
In view of the stand taken by counsel in the trial Court, the only issue which was set down for trial was whether or not there was any justification for the demolition of the plaintiff’s building. On that issue the learned trial judge found that there was no such justification as the defendants had no proper authority to do so. In this appeal, counsel for the appellants has honourably conceded that point and has restricted himself to the ground that, "The quantum of ordinary and exemplary damages awarded were excessive and/or wrong in law." He also argued that the cost awarded was unreasonable.
The damages of ¢950,000 awarded by the learned trial judge consisted of: (a) ¢594,00 as cost of replacement value of the building; (b) ¢300,00 as exemplary damages for trespass, and (c) ¢56,000 for the iron rods converted by the defendants to build the Yendi Mosque. Counsel for the respondent has conceded in this appeal that since the cost of iron rods was not specifically proved, it was wrong for the trial judge to have awarded ¢56,000 as special damages for the iron rods. I am satisfied that the learned trial judge erred on this and I would accordingly set aside that amount.
At the hearing of this appeal counsel for the respondent asked for leave to amend his claim to read "¢594,000" instead of ¢500,000 being the replacement value of the building which was demolished by the defendants. Leave was granted since the evidence on record supported the claim for ¢594,000. I must at this stage express my dissatisfaction at the way counsel for the parties at the court below flooded the proceeding with several irrelevant applications for amendments. Happily the learned trial judge was unperturbed. He looked at the pleadings which were lawfully filed and gave his judgment accordingly.
An appellate court may interfere with an assessment of damages by the court below, but it would not do so merely because its members would themselves have awarded a different sum. It will do so if