JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.
The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries sustained by him while at work on a dredger operated by the defendants in [p.946] the normal course of their business. The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants as a headman of labourers and had been working for the defendants for a total of thirteen years. The plaintiff's claim is based on breach of duty at common law and by statute, and the particulars of breach of duty set down in the statement of claim are as follows:
(1) Failing to give requisite warning.
(2) Failing to provide competent workmen.
(3) Failing to fence dangerous machinery.
(4) Failing to provide safe system of work.
The defendants in their statement of defence denied breach of duty and claimed that the plaintiff's injuries were due to "accident" and did not arise through negligence or breach of statutory duty. They also rely on a written agreement between the plaintiff and the corporation whereby the plaintiff agreed to accept compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), as amended by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Amendment) Decree, 1966 (NLCD 86), as full compensation for his injury. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has received payment under the agreement, and that by virtue of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), the defendant is bound to pay compensation in accordance with the said Act and not the common law, since the injury was sustained not through the negligence of the defendants.
The plaintiff in his reply admits the payment but contends that "He was not made to understand and appreciate the nature and effect of the alleged agreement whereby the said amount was paid to him," and furthermore that:
"He is not bound by the said agreement because:
(i) He is unable to read and understand the writing in the language in which the alleged agreement is expressed, and
(ii) Being a Moshie man he was not made to understand the terms of the said agreement because it was not interpreted to him in the Moshie language."
Turning from the pleadings to consider the evidence adduced in support thereof there is firstly the case for the plaintiff. He gave evidence as to the facts of the accident and also as to the circumstances in which he received payment from the corporation of the sum of money which the latter contend stops him from prosecuting this claim. One witness was called for the plaintiff to tender a report by the senior inspector
