[2008]DLSC2452 • July 25, 2008 • Supreme Court •
CHARITY AGYEIWAH vs. E.M.S., P&T CORPORATION
The appellant contracted the respondent corporation to deliver a postal parcel containing travellers' cheques valued at ₤10,000 to the United Kingdom. Although the parcel reached the respondent's agent in the UK, it was never delivered and was lost. The appellant sued for recovery of the value of the lost cheques. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding that the appellant did not post travellers' cheques but a document, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to declare a statutory provision void for inconsistency with the Constitution.
read moreMRS. WOOD, C.J. By this appeal, the plaintiff respondent appellant (appellant) questions the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal on four main grounds. Aside from the well- known and oft- used general ground: “The judgement is against the weight of evidence”, the two other grounds of appeal, which in any event are all embodied in the omnibus ground are the following: “The Court of Appeal misdirected itself by failing to consider the evidence of the defendant’s own witness (Maggie DW1) which evidence supported fully the plaintiff’s case.” The Court of Appeal erred when it held, in the teeth of all the evidence adduced at the trial that the appellant did not post any travellers cheques by EMS but rather posted a document as DW1 wrote “document” on the green tag which was put on the EMS envelope.” It is the fourth ground of appeal however, which raises important legal issues. It reads: “The Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law in coming to the conclusi...