ALLASAN KOTOKOLI vs. MORO HAUSA AND ANOTHER [1967]DLHC1446

Date	1967-05-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1446

EDUSEI J.

ADUAMUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

PUPLAMPU FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1967]DLHC1446
																																						<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" >ALLASAN KOTOKOLI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MORO HAUSA AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 298<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:
4 MAY 1967.<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">

ADUAMUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>In this
action the plaintiff is claiming from the defendants jointly and severally
£G5,000 or N¢10,000 damages for injuries sustained in a motor accident due to
the negligence of the first defendant who was the driver and servant of the
second defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
as revealed by the evidence are as follows: The first defendant was driving his
timber truck registration No. WR 4019 on 5 September 1961 on the Oda-Abenase
road. The plaintiff was walking along the same road to his farm when the first
defendant pulled up by his side. The first defendant alighted from his truck
and had a chat with the plaintiff for some few minutes. According to the first
defendant he then went into his timber truck and drove off not knowing that the
plaintiff had gone on to the truck. The plaintiff on the other hand stated that
the first defendant, after their short conversation, offered him a lift on the
timber truck which was going in the direction of his farm. On the evidence
before me, I prefer to accept the story of the plaintiff that he was offered a
lift by the first defendant, and reject as untrue and highly improbable the
version of the first defendant that the plaintiff got on to the timber truck
without his (the first defendant’s) knowledge and consent. When it was about a
quarter of a mile to the junction, where the plaintiff would get down and walk
to his farm, the accident occurred: the plaintiff fell from the timber truck
and the back nearside tyre ran over his left leg; he became unconscious. The
driver’s mate shouted to the first defendant that the plaintiff had fallen down
and so he stopped the vehicle and picked up the plaintiff and took him in the
timber truck to the Oda hospital where he regained consciousness. He was later
transferred to the Military Hospital, Accra, where his left leg was amputated.
The first defendant, however, made a report to the police at Oda.<o:p></o:p>It is on
these facts that the plaintiff instituted this action in negligence claiming
damages. For the plaintiff to succeed, he must establish the existence of a
legal duty, breach of that duty and damage suffered as a result of that breach
of duty. Thus Lord Wright has neatly put these requirements in Lochgelly Iron
and Coal Co., Ltd. v. M’Mullan [1934] A.C. 1 at p. 25, H.L. as follows:<o:p></o:p>“In
strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct,
whether in omission or commission: it property connotes the complex concept of
duty, breach, and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was
owing ...”<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in his statement of claim alleged as the particulars of negligence on
the part of the defendants the following: <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">(a) Failing to provide proper
seating accommodation for the plaintiff and <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">(b) Driving too fast on a bumpy
road. The first defendant denied these allegations of negligence and so they
became issues for trial. I have no hesitation at all in saying that there was
not a scintilla of evidence either from the plaintiff or his only witness,
Korankye, as to the manner in which the first defendant drove the timber truck.
There is not even the slightest suggestion by either of these two witnesses as
to the speed of the first defendant and the condition of the road. In the
course of his address the court drew the attention of the plaintiff’s counsel
to the absence of such evidence and he honestly conceded this. He therefore
strenuously contended, and invited the court to find, that the failure of the
first defendant to provide seating accommodation was evidence of negligence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
evidence that the vehicle was licensed to carry two persons; there is also
evidence that there was a tool-box behind the cowl of the timber truck and this
tool-box had been made in such a way that persons could sit on it. It spanned
the whole width of the truck and the width of the tool-box referred to by the
parties as a form a bench was nine inches. The plaintiff in his own evidence
stated that:<o:p></o:p>