MENSAH v. NATIONAL SAVINGS AND CREDIT BANK
1990
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WUAKU
- AMUA-SEKYI
- AIKINS
- EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C.
- AMUAH J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Insurance Law
1990
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal that overturned a High Court judgment awarding the plaintiff, Godson Mensah, damages for goods destroyed in a warehouse fire owned by the defendants. While the High Court awarded an inflated value based on currency conversion, the Court of Appeal questioned the evidence for negligence and the appropriateness of the damage calculation. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to ¢1,988,320, the declared value of the goods. They did not support using foreign currency for damage calculation and agreed that the evidence did not satisfactorily establish negligence.
JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal [see sub. nom. National Savings and Credit Bank v. Mensah [1989-90] 1 G.L.R 611 C.A. ante setting aside a judgment of Ampiah J. (as he then was) sitting in the High Court, Accra by which the plaintiff, Godson Mensah, a trader, was adjudged to be entitled to recover from the defendants, the sum of ¢112,573,178.60 as the value of goods destroyed in a fire which broke out in a warehouse owned by the defendants. At the time of the bailment, and up to the date of their destruction, the agreed value of the goods was ¢1,988,320. The plaintiff claimed the value of the goods, a refund of the warehouse fee he paid to the defendants and 30 per cent profit on the goods. The two latter claims were rejected by the High Court, but the claim for the value of the goods was inflated to the higher figure by converting the amount into United States dollars at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of the bailment and then converting it back into cedis at the rate prevailing at the date of judgment. Further damages of ¢20,000 were awarded, but these were cancelled out when account was given for an amount of ¢20,000 obtained from the sale of items retrieved from the fire.
The defendants had in the warehouse goods other than those of the plaintiff. They had insured them for a total sum of ¢5 million. The plaintiff had been called upon, and had in fact, paid a sum proportionate to the value of his goods as his contribution to the premium. In respect of any sums the defendants might receive from the insurers for the destruction of the plaintiff’s goods, they stood to him in the relationship of a trustee.
From the moment the goods were destroyed, the defendants assured the plaintiff that the matter was well in hand and that he would be paid. What they did not tell him was that the insurers, the State Insurance Corporation, had repudiated liability under the terms of the policy. When the plaintiff eventually sued the defendants, they brought in the insurers as third parties. The trial judge found them not liable on the ground that the claim was time-barred, having been made more than twelve months after the event. The defendants did not appeal against that decision, nor did the plaintiff appeal against the dismissal of his claim for a refund of the warehouse fee and for the profits he said he would have earned from the sale of the goods. These matters are therefore not before us. The