DAA vs. SERWAAH [1971]DLHC2103

Date	1971-03-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2103

MENSA BOISON J.

T.A. TOTOE FOR THE APPELLANT.

C.S.K. AGBANU STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2103
																																						<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" >DAA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>SERWAAH <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 50<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:
18 MARCH 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">

T.A. TOTOE
FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

C.S.K.
AGBANU, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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>The two
claimants are respectively the wife (as respondent) and mother (as appellant)
of the late E. K. Butah. The late Butah was an employee of Oyoko Contractors
Ltd. who were the defendants at the trial. It appears his death was a result of
fatal injuries sustained in the course of his employment with the defendant
company. Both claimants lay claim against the defendants as dependants of the
late Butah.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A claim
for compensation was made by the respondent on her own behalf as the wife of
the deceased, and for her child of the marriage under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174). The appellant, having registered her
interest, insisted on proceeding against the defendant company in negligence at
common law. Neither of the two dependants would compromise on the mode of
claim. In due course the district labour officer took out a motion, before the
district court, under Act 174 for an order distributing the assessed amount
under the Act to the dependants. The motion was supported by an affidavit sworn
to by the first claimant only. At the hearing, the second claimant, by her
counsel, opposed the application on the grounds that as the second claimant
elects to proceed at common law the payment of the compensation under the Act
at the election of the first claimant only will bar proceedings at common law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned district magistrate ruled against the contention holding that the
compensation was payable to the dependant who claims, and that it did not operate
as a bar to proceedings at common law at the instance of the second claimant.
Against this ruling the second claimant has appealed. The material ground is
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">“By
section 24 (3) of Act 174 a judgment at the suit of a dependant under the Act
is a bar against claims by any other dependant in any proceedings independently
of the Act and that the (trial) court erred in holding the contrary.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Totoe, counsel for the second claimant founded his contention on section 24 (1)
of the Act and more particularly on subsections (2) and (3). These provide (the
emphasis is mine):<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;“24. (1) Where the injury was caused by the
personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some other person for
whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall
prevent proceedings to recover damages being instituted against the employer in
a Civil Court independently of this Act. (2) A judgment in such proceedings
whether for or against the employer shall be a bar to proceedings at the suit of
any person by whom, or on whose behalf, such proceedings were taken, in respect
of the same injury under this Act. (3) A judgment in proceedings under this Act
whether for or against the employer shall be a bar to proceedings at the suit
of any person by whom, or on whose behalf, such proceedings were taken, in
respect of the same injury independently of this Act.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to counsel, the right of option must be exercised by the dependants of the
deceased as a class and not by individual dependants as the w</main>