SOCIAL SECURITY BANK LTD. v. AGYAKWA
June 27, 1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSIEM
- AMUAH
- ADJABENG JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Civil Procedure
June 27, 1991
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Essiem J.A., affirmed a trial judgment holding a bank liable in negligence for damage to hospital equipment and personal effects the bank warehoused as security for a loan granted to the plaintiff, a medical practitioner. The plaintiff imported five containers of medical supplies from the United Kingdom. The bank paid port charges to clear them and held the containers in its warehouse. Floods later seeped water into three containers, damaging goods. After the plaintiff repaid the loan, the bank required a printed acknowledgment of goods in good condition to release the containers. The court rejected the banks estoppel defense, found the bank failed to exercise reasonable care as pledgee/bailee, and upheld damages assessed under restitutio in integrum, including reliance on a survey report and referral to the Ghana Shippers Council for freight. Currency conversion and interest awards were also upheld, and the appeal was dismissed; a requested variation for inflation and higher costs was denied.
JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.
The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) imported into this country from the United Kingdom certain medical appliances as well as drugs. The evidence is that he bought the items over a period of time and shipped them to Ghana while he was still in the United Kingdom. When he later came to Ghana, the goods had arrived and he needed money to clear them. He did not have the money and approached the defendant-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) who are bankers for help. It was agreed orally that the defendants would help, but subject to their keeping the goods in their warehouse as security for the facilities granted.
In accordance with this agreement, the defendants paid direct to the necessary agencies and the Ports Authority certain sums of money and this enabled the plaintiff to clear the goods. A list of the items imported was supplied to the defendants. The loan thus granted [p.195] totalled ¢800,000. The goods, in five containers, were delivered to the defendants on 19 December 1984. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants would keep the goods as security for the loan until the plaintiff paid the whole debt he owed the bank. The plaintiff's case is that he finished paying off the loan on 28 April 1986, and that the goods were then released to him that same day. Before he collected the goods, he had to sign printed acknowledgment that he had received the goods and that they were in good condition. He took the goods to Suhum.
However, according to the plaintiff, when he examined the goods at Suhum where he had his clinic, he found that the contents of three of the five containers were damaged; water had seeped into the containers and the contents were damaged. The plaintiff, claiming that the defendants were required to take reasonable care of the goods, and that they failed to do this, sued them. The claim was for:
"Damages and consequential loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the damage caused to the plaintiff’s hospital equipment and various other goods and personal effects through negligence in the custody of those goods by the defendants, their agents and workmen; alternatively, the plaintiff claims the above-stated reliefs for negligence in the keeping of the said goods pawned or pledged to the defendants."
This writ was filed on 10 April 1987, and on 8 May 1987 a statement of claim was also filed.
The statement of claim set out in some detail the main b