Mariam Hotel and Edern Security Ltd. v. Jay Kesselee Fartormah
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Mariama Owusu, J.A. (Presiding)
- Francis Korbieh, J.A.
- Irene Danquah, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment out of Tamale involving Mariam Hotel (1st defendant/appellant), its contracted security provider (2nd defendant/appellant), and an Information Consultant attached to the European Technician Assistant Project to the Ghana Audit Service (respondent). The respondent checked into Room 108 at Mariam Hotel on 11 December 2006, briefly left after locking his room, returned to find the door broken and five personal items missing, and promptly informed hotel management and security. The High Court found his evidence more plausible, faulted the defendants for not calling staff present at the time, and entered judgment for $3,767 while dismissing the hotel’s counterclaim. On appeal, the hotel challenges findings on theft, hearsay, rules manipulation, and special-damages proof; the security company contests negligence and weight of evidence, citing foreseeability and industry practice. The respondent relies on PW1–PW4, burden-of-proof principles, and res ipsa loquitur. The excerpt records the grounds and arguments; the final appellate disposition is not included.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J. A:
On 18-11-2010, the High Court, Tamale, dismissed 1st defendant’s counterclaim as not proved.
Judgment was then entered in favour of the plaintiff against defendants jointly and severally for the recovery of the sum of $3, 767. 00 being the total of his five items lost when he checked into a room in 1st defendant (Mariam Hotel) as a paying customer of the 1st defendant.
In his judgment, the trial High Court Judge held among other things as follows: “The last issue to consider is whether or not the plaintiff succeeds in his claim.
The answer is very much so.
From the totality of the evidence adduced before me coupled with the input of the witnesses of plaintiff and the Exhibits, the case of the plaintiff is more plausible by a preponderance of the probabilities.
I have already lamented that the evidence of the defendants lacks support in that though they admitted having their employees around at the time of the incident, they did not deem it prudent to call them to build up their case.
All that they were trying to do was to find weakness in the case of the plaintiff in order to use that to build up their weak cases.
Before they succeed in shopping for weaknesses in the case of the plaintiff, they ought to have led a solid evidence so as to shore up their own defences.
This they failed to do the inevitable consequence is that since the plaintiff has led credible evidence to merit judgment being entered in his favour, judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $3, 767. 00 being the total of his five items which are set hereunder. ”Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the 1st defendant appealed to this court on the following grounds: a. The trial Judge erred when he held plaintiff’s items were stolen.
b. The trial Judge erred for accusing 1st defendant of manipulating its Rules and Regulations (Exhibit 1) in contemplation of its case.
c. The trial Judge erred in holding defendants liable for any lost item of plaintiff despite the fact that plaintiff refused to declare any such items in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant which plaintiff admitted having read.
d. The trial Judge erred in relying on the evidence of plaintiff that the receptionist of 1st defendant/appellant confirmed that the occupant of Room 109 broke into plaintiff’s room.
e. The trial Judge erred in holding that Room 108 of defendant was broken into.
f. The trial Judge erred in holding defendants as joint