ATAA AND OTHERS vs. ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CORPORATION AND OTHERS [1971]DLHC2084

Date	1971-07-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2084

MENSA BOISON J.

JOSEPH PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

MENSA BONSU FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANTS.

[1971]DLHC2084
																																						<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" >ATAA AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CORPORATION AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 421<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:
28 JULY 1971.<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">

JOSEPH
PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

MENSA BONSU
FOR THE FIRST 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>On 19
November 1963 a very distressing accident occurred in the gold mines of the
first defendants at Obuasi as a result of which one Kofi Boateng died. The said
Kofi Boateng was employed by the first defendants as an underground workman. On
the aforesaid date, the deceased and other miners were being hauled up from the
23rd level station of a mine shaft to the surface, when the cage carrying the
men ran away and dropped into the bottom of the flooded shaft. The cage was
submerged, and needless to say, the deceased and the other occupants died.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
consequence of the death the defendants paid compensation under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), to the first plaintiff for herself and on
behalf of the four infant plaintiffs, as widow and children respectively of the
late Kofi Boateng. The first plaintiff, however, now brings this action in
negligence for the benefit of herself and the four infant plaintiffs as
dependants of the deceased against the first defendants or their servants (the
second, third and fourth defendants) or both. The third and fourth defendants
did not bother to appear, and the second defendant was never served with the
writ.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs charged the defendants with the following negligence:<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)
Wrongfully permitting persons to enter and travel in the single unbalanced
cage.<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)
Operating on an engine with a defective mechanical brake whose effectiveness
was completely lost.<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">&nbsp;(3) Operating on an engine whose dynamic brake
was defective and unstable.<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)
Failing properly to manage and control the engine so as to avoid the 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">(5)
Failing to give the proper signals thereby causing and or contributing to the
accident.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Apart
from denying the issue of negligence and damages, the first defendants raised a
plea in bar to the present proceedings by virtue of section 24 (3) of the Act,
which, though the most crucial issue, I intend to deal with last.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s third witness was a senior inspector of machinery employed at the
Government Mines Department and with some ten years’ experience he impressed me
as very able in his field. On behalf of his department he conducted an inquiry
</main>