MENSAH AND ANOTHER vs. AMAKOM SAWMILL & CO. AND ANOTHER [1962]DLHC1594

Date	1962-05-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1594

APALOO J.

A. A. AKAINYAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

E. K. WIREDU FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1594
																																						<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">MENSAH AND ANOTHER <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">AMAKOM SAWMILL &amp; CO. AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 373<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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"> 21ST MAY, 1962.<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">

A.
A. AKAINYAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

E.
K. WIREDU FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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 6.0pt 0in">

APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
APALOO, J.<o:p></o:p>[After finding that the accident was caused by the negligent
driving of the second defendant in the normal course of his employment and that
the first defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence of the second
defendant, his lordship continued:] I confess that I have not found the
assessment of damages anything but difficult. My own researches did not reveal
any case in which the Supreme Court gave any guidance on what principle the
quantum is to be determined. In the case of Ogunkoya and Ors. v. Peters1(1) the
West African Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff must furnish evidence to
warrant the award of damages and facts for a basis of assessment. But it did
not decide on what principle the assessment was to be based. In the case of
Faloye and Ors. v. Olaniyan and Anor.,2(2) the only other reported case in
which the Court of Appeal considered the Fatal Accidents Act, it similarly gave
no guidance. I accordingly fell for guidance upon English decisions. The
judgment of Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries
Ltd.3(3) is regarded as the pointer to the practical way in which the
assessment of damages should be ascertained. Lord Wright said:<o:p></o:p>“There is no question here of what may be called sentimental
damage, bereavement or pain and suffering. It is a hard matter of pounds,
shillings and pence, subject to the element of reasonable future probabilities.
The starting point is the amount of wages which the deceased was earning, the
ascertainment of which to some extent may depend on the regularity of his
employment. Then there is an estimate of how much was required or expended for
his own personal and living expenses. The balance will give a datum or basic
figure which will generally be turned into a lump sum by taking a certain number
of years’ purchase. That sum, however, has to be taxed down by having due
regard to the uncertainties, for instance, that the widow might have again
married and thus ceased to be dependent, and other like matters of speculation
and doubt.”4(4)<o:p></o:p>In this case, the deceased was self-employed and his annual income
is said to be £G800 but both plaintiffs are unable to say how much the deceased
spent out of this on himself. They however gave evidence of the contribution
that the deceased made for the support of themselves and their children. That
ought to be the datum figure for this case. This must be multiplied by the
number of years this contribution would have continued, technically referred to
by Lord Wright as the “number of years’ purchase”, taking into account the
risks of a rise or fall in this contribution. In determining the number of
years’ purchase, the most important question is how long would the deceased
have continued to live if he had not met this particular accident and how much
working life did he have? This at once brings into question the deceased’s
state of health and age. In the case of Roughead v. Railway Executive5(5)
Humphreys, J. said that ten years’ purchase was a figure often taken by judges
but he himself took fifteen. The same figure was taken in Bishop v. Cunard
White Star Co. Ltd.6(6) It is said that twelve to fifteen is quite a common
multiplier in the case of a healthy man.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As to the financial contribution to the plaintiffs, the first
plaintiff said the deceased gave her every day the sum of fifteen shillings for
the living expenses of herself and the children. She has seven children. The
second plaintiff said she received ten shillings per day for herself and her
four children. Accordingly, the deceased made a contribution of £Gl5s. per day
for the support of himself, his two wives and eleven children. In present day
economies, this sum seems to me reasonable. As the deceased himself found his
meals from this sum, I shall deduct from it five shillings per diem. That
represents the net contribution that the deceased made per day for food for his
two wives and eleven children. Accordingly, in a month of 30 days, the deceased
contributed a net sum of £G30 for the support of his family. This totals £G360
per year. In addition to this the first plaintiff said the deceased gave her
£G100 per annum to buy the personal effects of herself and her children. The
second plaintiff said she received £G50 at Christmas for similar purpose. The
deceased seemed to have been a devoted husband and considered the claims of his
family the first charge on his generosity. There is, in my opinion, no reason
to disbelieve this evidence. Accordingly, the deceased provided another £G150
to his family in addition to the usual sum of £G360 which he made available for
their food. Accordingly the aggregate sum which the deceased contributed to the
support of his family is £G510. The plaintiffs said the deceased also gave them
small pecuniary presents at irregular intervals. I propose to ignore this for
the purpose of ascertaining the datum figure.<o:p></o:p>