RESOURCES RENEW LTD VS PRAIRIE VOLTA LIMITED
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- MRS. JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant claiming negligence in aerial spraying that destroyed its kenaf plants in May 2011. The court, after evaluating evidence and testimonies, held that the Defendant was not negligent and awarded the Plaintiff nominal damages of GHc40,000 due to the Plaintiff's failure to establish negligence and the exaggerated nature of their claims for damages.
By a Writ of Summons the Plaintiff sued the defendant claiming the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the Defendant was negligent in its aerial spraying exercise carried out in Aveyime sometime in May, 2011. b. General damages.
c. An order for recovery of Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight United States Dollars (US$11, 978. 00) being special damages.
d. An order for the recovery of Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Four United States Dollars (US$ 99, 294. 00) being profit due Plaintiff but as a result of the destruction of the Kenaf Plants by the Defendant’s aerial spraying.
e. Costs.
f. Any other relief (s) which the Honourable Court deems just and equitable.
The Plaintiff a limited liability company in its Statement of Claim stated that it is engaged in the planting of Kenaf, a herbaceous plant grown for its fibre, oil seed and paper pulp production and had successfully piloted same in the Eastern and Volta Regions of this country.
The Plaintiff averred that in furtherance of its plans to build a Greenfield Bleach-Chemo Thermo Mechanical Pulp (BCTMP) market pulp mill with its own power Generation plant on site it acquired a tract of land at Bakpa Kpebenu, near Aveyime in the Volta Region for the kenaf seed multiplication as well as stalk.
It stated that its farm lands cultivated with the kenaf plants abuts Defendant’s rice fields at Aveyime in the Volta Region with a canal and a road respectively separating the rice fields and the kenaf farms. It is Plaintiff’s case that it acquired seeds Three Hundred and Thirty-One US Dollars (US$ 331. 00) from the University of Mississippi, USA and planted these on its farm in February 2011. These plants blossomed to the flowering stage in May 2011. However with the Defendant undertaking an aerial spraying sometime in May 2011 of its rice fields without due care it ended up spraying its agro chemicals onto Plaintiffs burgeoning kenaf plants such that the kenaf plants and other plants of various descriptions belonging to other farmers on nearby farms were destroyed.
The Plaintiff averred that due to the destruction of their farm the District Agric office wrote to the Defendant based upon their complaint to the Agric office.
This was followed up by a meeting at the Defendant’s offices to enable them reach an agreement for compensating all the farmers affected by the negligent aerial spraying carried out by the Defendant.
Plaintiff contended that it is the Defendant’s negligence that