NTIM vs. ACCRA-TEMA CITY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [1967]DLHC1519

Date	1967-07-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1519

ANTERKYI J.

J. N. OKINE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MESSRS. LYNES QUASHIE-IDUN & CO. FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS.

[1967]DLHC1519
																																						<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" >NTIM <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ACCRA-TEMA CITY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 498<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:
10 JULY 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">

J. N. OKINE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

MESSRS. LYNES QUASHIE-IDUN &amp; CO. FOR THE FIRST
AND SECOND DEFENDANTS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANTERKYI J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case, the plaintiff claims by the endorsement on his writ,<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">“¢36,000.00
(£G15,000) damages against the first and second defendants jointly and
severally for injuries, shock, pains, suffering, deformity, loss of earnings,
capacity and damages as a result of the negligence of the first and second
defendants by causing or permitting the vehicle No. GF 2516 property of the
first defendant driven by the second defendant to be involved in an accident
thereby causing severe injuries to the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff is now
totally disabled and has incurred and suffered loss and damage as detailed in
the statement of claim.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
accident had occurred on or about 6 November 1965, while the second defendant,
as a servant of the first defendants, was driving the said vehicle of the first
defendants, with the plaintiff aboard it, in the course of his employment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The writ
was filed on 19 January 1967 — about fourteen months and two weekends after the
accident. By paragraph (8) of the statement of defence, the defendants
contended that the action was statute-barred, and, upon this issue being raised
as a preliminary objection when the case came on for hearing on 22 May 1967,
Mr. Akiwumi, counsel for the defendants, contended that it was because, the
first defendant, being a council, by section 133 of the Local Government Act,
1961 (Act 54), it is provided that:<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">“When any
suit is commenced against any Council for any act done in pursuance or
execution or intended execution of any enactment or of any public duties or
authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of
any such enactment, duty or authority, the suit shall not lie or be instituted
unless it is commenced within twelve months next after the act, neglect or
default complained of, or in the case of a continuance of damage or injury,
within twelve months next after the ceasing thereof.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff by paragraph (4) of the reply had averred that:<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) The
plaintiff denies paragraph (8) of the statement of defence and says that the
plaintiff was under hard treatment and suffered great pains and complications
in the injuries which continued in the Military Hospital till 12 October 1966,
when the plaintiff was temporarily and conditionally discharged. Even further
complications developed after briefing counsel on the facts and the plaintiff
has again been re-admitted in hospital since 3 February 1967 and operated upon.<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) The
plaintiff will further contend against paragraph (8) of the statement of
defence and say that the action is not statute-barred as there has been
continuance of injury and damage to the plaintiff since the accident . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And Mr.
J.N. Okine, counsel for the plaintiff, relied on his contention during the
hearing of the preliminary objection, and invited the court to interpret fairly
section 133 of Act 54 in question.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><</main>