[1990]DLHC2025 • April 12, 1990 • High Court
HASNEM ENTERPRISE LTD. vs. ELECTRICITY CORPORATION OF GHANA
The plaintiff company, Hasnem Enterprise Ltd., sued the Electricity Corporation of Ghana for damages arising from an electrical incident on 21 March 1981 at its Cape Coast office. According to the plaintiff, when its managing director switched on the office electrical system, bulbs exploded and fluorescent lights emitted flames. The matter was reported to the defendant, whose workmen inspected the premises and found that the main underground service cable to the meters had been cut into two due to a fault. The plaintiff alleged that the fault on the defendant’s service cable caused damage to its electrical appliances and office equipment, including fluorescent fittings, bulbs and an IBM copier machine, and claimed damages for breach of contract, negligence and originally nuisance. The defendant admitted the contractual relationship and admitted that a fault occurred on its underground service cable, but denied negligence and contended instead that the plaintiff had overloaded the supply, thereby damaging the system. Source in judgment: opening paragraphs beginning “The plaintiffs claim against the defendants…” and later “On 21 March 1981 the plaintiffs’ managing director entered the premises…”
read moreJUDGMENT OF BENIN J. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants “the sum of ¢175,771.50 being general damages for breach of contract for the supply of electricity and/or alternatively for negligence and/or nuisance.” This is contained in the indorsement on the writ of summons filed on 5 May 1982. The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim on 2 July 1982. The indorsement on the writ was first amended with leave granted on 26 October 1983, and secondly, with leave granted on 24 June 1985. The writ as finally amended reads as follows: “The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is for general and special damages for breach of contract for the supply of electricity and/or alternatively for negligence and/or nuisance.” The statement of claim was never sought to be amended to reflect the amended writ. The hearing was concluded and the matter set down for addresses on 4 April 1990. On 3 April 1990 the plaintiffs put in an application on notice to amend the writ of summons for ...