LARYEA vs. ANNAN [1964]DLSC1922

Date	1964-02-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1922

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

MILLS-ODOI J.S.C

APALOO J.

J. ARTHUR FOR THE APPELLANT.

G. ADUAMAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1922
																																						<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" >LARYEA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANNAN <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 755<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">

DATE:
29 FEBRUARY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

J. ARTHUR FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN AND MILLS-ODOI JJ.S.C.
AND APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff-respondent
(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) brought an action against Larbi
Armah (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and Amartey Laryea
(hereinafter referred to as the appellant) jointly and severally claiming the
sum of £6,000 damages for personal injuries caused to him by the negligent acts
of the defendant who was alleged to have been at the time a servant of the
appellant, and for whose negligence the appellant is said to be liable. The
facts of this case are set out briefly by the learned trial judge in his
judgment. They are 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">“By his
statement of claim the plaintiff avers that on 21 January 1962, he travelled as
a passenger in vehicle No. AG. 6489 belonging to the second defendant and
driven by the first defendant, and upon reaching a point between miles 11 and
12 on the Winneba-Accra road the said vehicle was so managed and controlled by
the first defendant that it hit a stationary vehicle No. AG. 4991 whereby he
sustained several personal injuries which have rendered him disabled and
whereby he has suffered damage and loss. The second defendant admits that he is
the owner of the vehicle No. AG. 6489 which was involved in the accident, but
denies that the first defendant has ever been or was at the material date of
the accident his driver and servant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant maintained throughout the proceedings that one Clement Kwaku Larbi
was the driver employed by him at the date of purchase of vehicle No. AG 6489
and he alone had been in charge of it from that date. He therefore denied
liability on the ground that there had never been any contract of service
between him and the defendant. The defendant was served with a copy of the writ
of summons along with a copy of the statement of claim but he did not enter an
appearance or file any defence and, before trial of the action, the respondent
obtained an interlocutory judgment against him on his claim. The respondent
also sought to fix the appellant with liability, for as is usual in such cases,
the defendant, a driver, is probably a man of straw against whom a judgment in
damages is worthless. The issue of negligence in so far as the defendant is
concerned was therefore not in dispute. The main issues or questions of fact
that fell for the determination of the learned trial judge were whether the
appellant was liable for the negligent acts of the defendant and, if
conclusively established by evidence that he was, the quantum of damage.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
averments made by the respondent in his pleadings and the evidence which he
adduced at the trial were directed mainly to establish that the appellant was
the owner of the vehicle that was used in causing the injuries and that the
defendant was the driver of the said vehicle at the crucial time. His evidence
tending to establish liability in the appellant was contained in the following
passage:<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">“On 21
January 1962 I travelled as a passenger in Bedford Lorry No. AG. 6489. I
boarded the lorry at Tema and I travelled in it to a village called Niyema near
Swedru. I went there with others to witness a football match. I returned by the
same vehicle from Niyema village which was to take me and the others back to
Tema. The driver of the said lorry was one Larbi Armah. I have made
investigations and I have got to know that the vehicle No. AG. 6489 has been
registered in the name of the second defendant herein Amartey Laryea. The lorry
in which I travelled was driven by the first defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Under
cross-examination he said he did not know who had been driving the appellant’s
vehicle prior to the date of the accident. His evidence merely established
ownership of vehicle No. AG 6489, a matter which was not in dispute. It also
identified the defendant as the person who drove the said vehicle along the
Winneba-Accra road on the day in question. The only witness called by the
respondent to corroborate his evidence in fixing the appellant with liability
was an inspector of the Ghana Police Force stationed at New Tema. His evidence
tended to establish that the defendant was the driver of the Bedford lorry No.
AG 6489 long before the date of the accident and that he had travelled on it
several times in Tema prior to that date. At the trial he deposed, inter alia,
as follows:<o:p></o:p>