JOOF vs. GAMBIAN MINERALS LTD. [1957]DLWALR1161

Date	1957-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1957]DLWALR1161

[1957]DLWALR1161
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >2 WALR 224-229<o:p></o:p>January
28, 1957<o:p></o:p>JOOF<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GAMBIAN MINERALS LTD.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">[High
Court of the Protectorate of the Gambia]<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">Miles
C.J<o:p></o:p>

</div><table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="0" style="width:460.7pt;mso-cellspacing:0cm;background:white;mso-yfti-tbllook:
 1184;mso-padding-alt:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt">
 <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;height:48.0pt">
 <td width="614" valign="top" style="width:460.7pt;padding:2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt 2.25pt;
 height:48.0pt">
 Master and Servant&nbsp;-&nbsp;Negligence&nbsp;-&nbsp;Claim by
 employee in respect 01 an industrial injury&nbsp;-&nbsp;Common law
 liability 01 employer&nbsp;-&nbsp;Previous proceedings under
 Workmen's Compensation Ordinance,&nbsp;c.&nbsp;93-Workmen's
 Compensation Ordinance,&nbsp;c. 93,&nbsp;s.&nbsp;25 (1)&nbsp;(b).<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
 mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
 mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p>
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Negligence&nbsp;-&nbsp;Contributory
 negligence&nbsp;-&nbsp;Laws 01 England (Application) Ordinance,&nbsp;c.
 1,&nbsp;s.&nbsp;11.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
 115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
 mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p>
 The plaintiff was employed by the defendant company
 as a carpenter and, in the course of his employment, sustained severe
 injuries to his right hand as a result of its coming into contact with a
 circular saw. Disability was put at 42~ per cent. The defendants did not deny
 negligence but asserted contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff
 and claimed that in any event the plaintiff's common law remedy had become
 statute-barred by the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, c.
 93, s. 25 (1)&nbsp;(b).&nbsp;This provides that a judgment under the
 Ordinance, whether for or against the employer, is a bar to further
 proceedings outside the Ordinance. In this case the defendants, evidently
 admitting liability, sent a cheque for £150 16s. 8d. to the Commissioner,
 Western Division, for payment to the plaintiff and, at the same time, advised
 both the plaintiff and his solicitor that they had done so. In the absence of
 his solicitor the plaintiff went to the Commissioner and was told that the
 money had been paid into court and could not be paid out until an award
 should be given in favour of him by the court. He was therefore advised by
 the Commissioner to commence proceedings against the defendants by taking out
 a summons, and this he did. The summons was returnable on the following day,
 the plaintiff attended but the defendants were not represented and the
 Commissioner gave a " judgment" in favour of the plaintiff, thereby
 releasing the money to him. It appeared from the record that the proceedings
 before the Commissioner. were taken against the manager of the company, not
 against the company itself, and that judgment was given against the manager.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
 mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
 mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p>
 Held,&nbsp;(i) the
 judgment in the proceedings before the Commissioner was given against the
 office of manager of the defendant company. This was not a legal entity
 capable of being sued either on its own account or as representing the
 defendant company; !lor was the manager the employer of the plaintiff. No
 judgment had thus been given "for or against the employer" within
 the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, c. 93, s. 25 (1)&nbsp;(b),&nbsp;and
 therefore the proceedings before the Commissioner could !lot operate as a bar
 to the plaintiff's common law claim.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;
 line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
 &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
 EN-US"><o:p></o:p>
 (ii) On the facts, general damages were to be
 assessed at £1,600, and contributory negligence, at 25 per cent., was
 established against the plaintiff. By the application of the Laws of England
 (Application) Ordinance, c. 1, s. 11, general damages were thus reduced to
 £1,200.<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
 &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
 &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p>
 Semble,&nbsp;notwithstanding
 the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, s. 25 (1)&nbsp;(b),&nbsp;a
 judgment obtained in proceedings under the Ordinance may not necessarily
 operate as a bar to an action outside&nbsp;[page225]&nbsp;the
 Ordinance if the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation (Rules of Court)
 Rules, 1941, as to the conduct of those proceedings are not complied with.