AMEGBOR vs. CHAHAL AND ANOTHER [1967]DLHC1447

Date	1967-05-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1447

ANNAN J.

E. O. APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1967]DLHC1447
																																						<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" >AMEGBOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>CHAHAL AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 341<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:
17 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">

E. O. APPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff claims damages against the defendants for:<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">“injury
and consequential loss caused by the negligent driving of one Ofori Yaw as
servant or agent of both or either the defendants in driving the motor vehicle
bearing registration number CR 100 and or by the breach by both defendants or either
of them of statutory duty under section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party
Insurance) Act, 1958.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second defendant could not be found for service on him of the writ and the
action was prosecuted only in respect of the first defendant.<o:p></o:p>On the amended
statement of claim the plaintiff set out the following particulars:<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">“(1) that
on the date of the accident, 14 December 1962, he was a passenger for reward on
vehicle No. CR 100 belonging to both defendants. <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">(2) That
the vehicle was in charge of and being driven by one Ofori Yaw. <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">(3)
Through the negligence of Ofori Yaw in the course of his employment, vehicle
No. CR 100 collided with a stationary vehicle on the road, left the road and
went in a ditch whereby the plaintiff sustained injury. The plaintiff gave
particulars of the negligence of Ofori Yaw and also relied on the maxim res
ipsa loquitur. <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">(4) Ofori
Yaw used the vehicle on the road without there being in force in relation to
the said user a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks. Both
defendants caused or permitted the uninsured user contrary to section 3 of the
Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958 (No. 42 of 1958). <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">(5)
Neither Ofori Yaw nor Atta Botsi, the second defendant, was at any material
time possessed of any means with which to pay any sum in respect of the damages
payable to the plaintiff by reason of the said accident. <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">(6) Ofori
Yaw was the servant or agent of both or either defendant acting in the course
of his employment or within the scope of his authority or agency and acted with
the permission of both or either defendant as owners of vehicle No. CR 100.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
defendant in his statement of defence denied all these allegations in the
plaintiff’s statement of claim. In particular he denied that Ofori Yaw was his
servant or agent, or that the plaintiff was carried for reward to him as a
passenger on vehicle No. CR 100 and further denied that he was the owner of
vehicle No. CR 100 at the material time. The first defendant contended that he
had sold the said vehicle No. CR 100 to the second defendant on a “work and
pay” basis and that the second defendant was the owner of the vehicle at the
date of the accident.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>