BORTETEY vs. ACHINIVU AND OTHERS [1960]DLHC5350

Date	1960-03-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC5350

MILLS-ODOI J.

FRANCOIS FOR PLAINTIFF.

AMOO-LAMPTEY FOR ANTERKYI FOR DEFENDANTS.

[1960]DLHC5350
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">BORTETEY <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">ACHINIVU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1960] GLR 73&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"> 31ST MARCH, 1960.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

FRANCOIS
FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MILLS-ODOI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF
MILLS-ODOI J.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for plaintiff submits that, because there is a total loss
of the taxicab, his client is entitled to recover from the defendants both its
market value before the date of the accident, and also a further sum in respect
of the loss of future earnings. In support of this submission he cited Gibb on
Collision on Land (5th edition) page 213. The passage referred to by counsel
for plaintiff at page 213 of Gibb does not support his contention that his
client is entitled to recover in respect of the loss of earnings or mesne
profits. According to that page,<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“where there is a total loss of a ship there may be recovered,
over and above her value at the time of loss, the profit lost under a
charterparty then current, less the expenses probably to be incurred in earning
that profit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This is to be understood to mean that in addition to the market
value of the chattel at the time of the accident, the owner is entitled to
recover any consequential loss suffered by him, that is to say, the loss of
profits which would have accrued from some specified use to which the chattel
would have been put (The Racine [1906] P.273) and also special damage suffered
by him, as (in this case) the expenses of towing the chattel. It is interesting
to note that on the previous page Gibb states, under the heading “Damage to
Chattel”, “where there is total loss or destruction, the measure of damages is
the market value of the chattel before the accident, less the value of any
salvage”.<o:p></o:p>The passage referred to by counsel for the plaintiff from Gibb and
Millner’s Trial of Motor Car Accident Cases (3rd edition) p. 286, section 285,
does not apply to the issue involved in this case. That passage reads as
follows:—<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The condition of the car after the collision shows the extent of
the damage. If it is beyond repair, totally destroyed or rendered worthless,
the plaintiff may recover in full its market value prior to the accident. He
may also be entitled to recover for loss of profits caused by the destruction
of the vehicle”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The “loss of profits” referred to in that passage does not mean
loss of future profits or mesne profits, but profits which plaintiff would have
earned from a contract which was subsisting at the date of the collision. The
passage refers to the case of The Kate ([1899] P.165) in which the plaintiffs
were the owners of the Norwegian barque Chrysolite, and the defendants were the
owners of the Austrian steamship Kate. The question was as to the measure of
damages in the case of the total loss, by collision, of a vessel on her way, in
ballast, to load under charter. It was held that the proper measure of damages
was the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage, plus the profits lost
under the charterparty. In his judgment Sir Francis Jeune enunciated the
following principle:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The general principle which governs the assessment of damages is
of course restitutio in integrum qualified by the condition that the damage
sought to be recovered must not be too remote—that is to say, must be the
natural consequence, and not merely a consequence traceable in fact to the
wrongful act. It may be nothing more than a question of statement of figures
whether the owner of a vessel, lost when under a profitable charterparty, is
recouped this loss by receiving her value at the conclusion of her voyage plus
the profits of her charterparty, or by receiving her value at the time of
collision, such value being enhanced by the fact that the ship at the time was
under a profitable charterparty. But, unless in one or other of these ways the
owner gets the benefit of the profitable engagement of his ship, he obviously
fails to realise a restitutio in integrum.”<o:p></o:p>