ROCASON VENTURES LIMITED v. RICHARD MANSO & ANOR.
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Insurance Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a negligence claim arising from a road accident between two commercial vehicles. The court found the first defendant (driver) negligent in causing the accident by dangerously overtaking on a curve. The second defendant (Takoradi Flour Mill Ltd) was held vicariously liable as the employer. While the court affirmed the plaintiff's right to compensation for damage to their vehicle and loss of use, it rejected the claim for special damages due to insufficient proof of alternative transportation costs. The court emphasized the need for strict proof of special damages and the duty to mitigate losses. Ultimately, the court awarded nominal damages of GH₵10,000 for loss of use, highlighting the importance of proper documentation and reasonable actions in mitigating damages in tort cases.
JUDGMENT
Rocason Ventures, the plaintiff herein, describes itself as a Limited Liability company that deals in transporting and supplying of terrazzo chippings. The 1st defendant has also been described as a driver in the employment of the 2nd defendant, Takoradi Flour Mill Ltd.
By its writ of summons and statement of claim issued from the registry of this court on 28/1/14, the plaintiff sought the under listed reliefs:
a. A declaration that the 1st defendant is liable in negligence for the accident involving vehicles with registration number GT 7725 X and AS 4027 V which occurred at Menang Junction near New Edubiase on 28th November, 2012.
b. A declaration that the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable to the plaintiff for the damage caused to plaintiff 's vehicle as a result of the accident aforementioned due to the negligence of the 1st defendant.
c. An order for the recovery of the sum of GH¢ 84, 500.00 being the expenses incurred by the plaintiff on alternative transportation by hiring vehicles for business during the period between 30th November 2012 and 27th August, 2013 when the plaintiff 's vehicle had been damaged as a result of the negligence of the 1st defendant.
d) General damages for negligence
e) Any further orders as the Honourable court may deem fit.
THE PLAINTIFF 'S CASE
The plaintiff's case is that on 28/11/2012 whilst its articulated truck with registration number AS 4027 V was on the road from Obuasi to Tema to deliver terrazzo chippings to its customers in the natural course of its business, the 1st defendant who was driving the 2nd defendant's Man Diesel articulated Truck with registration No. GT 7725 X from Kumasi towards Takoradi drove so carelessly whilst over taking the plaintiff's vehicle. As a result of the negligence, the defendant's vehicle hit the frontal portion of the plaintiff's vehicle resulting in massive damage to the plaintiff's vehicle and the same was left in a bad condition not worthy to transport the plaintiff's load on the road. The plaintiff set out the particulars of negligence in paragraph 7 of its statement of claim and asserted that it had to resort to renting alternative vehicles for its business, resulting in expenses to the tune of GH¢ 84, 500.00. So, in addition to the declaratory reliefs and general damages sought by the plaintiff, it is seeking to recover these expenses from the 2nd defendant whose driver is alleged to have negligently caused the accident.
THE DEFENDANT'S CASE
The Defendant di