STEPHEN DIAB DARKO v. CHIRANO GOLD MINE LTD.
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Tort Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, an employee in the defendant mining company, suffered severe burns as a result of an explosion at work caused by a modification in the equipment. The High Court found the defendant largely responsible for the accident and awarded substantial damages to the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the High Court's decision and upheld the awarded damages and costs.
DENNIS ADJEI,J.A:
The defendant/appellant (hereafter called the defendant dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court Sefwi Wiawso delivered on 9th December,2010 filed an appeal against the said judgment to this court. The plaintiff/respondent would be referred to in this appeal as plaintiff.
The brief facts of the case which culminated in this appeal were that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company. The plaintiff worked with the elution section of the processing plant of the defendant mining company. The plaintiff’s work entailed the boiling of chemicals “for stripping of gold” and the taking in a two hourly interval, pressure and temperature readings at the top of the elution strainer column. He worked for 12 hours a day that is from 7:00am to 7:00pm. On 31st December, 2007 when the plaintiff went to take the last readings at the top of the elution strainer column for the day, an explosion occurred from the elution strainer which burnt some parts of his body. He was burnt by the mixture of hot cynide and caustic soda exploded from the elution strainer. He was admitted at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital Kumasi until 23rd January,2008 when he was discharged to the out patient department. He maintained an action against the defendant, his employers for failing to provide safety free environment for him at the High Court. The plaintiff was found to have negligently contributed to the accident and his contribution was assessed at ten percent (10%). The defendant’s contribution to the accident was assessed at ninety percent (90%). The defendant dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court filed an appeal against the judgment. The three (3) ground of appeal filed by the defendant are as follows:
“a. The trial Judge erred when he held by the implication sustained on the job by the plaintiff on 31st December,2007 was caused by the personal negligence or willful act of the Defendant/Appellant.
b. the judgment of the trial Judge cannot be supported by the plaintiff’s evidence adduced to prove that it was the Defendant’s personal negligence or willful act that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
c. the quantum of damages and costs awarded by the trial was not excessive but that award in particular is not supported by the totality of evidence placed before the trial Judge”.
The combined effect of grounds (a) and (b) of the appeal is that the accident which caused injury to the plaintiff on 31st December,2007 was neither caused by th