ANSAH vs. BAIDEN [1972]DLCA355

Date	1972-12-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLCA355

JIAGGE J.A

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.A

TAYLOR JJ

ABBAN JJ.

P. A ADJETEY FOR THE APPLICANT.

S. ANNANCY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1972]DLCA355
																																						<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" >ANSAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BAIDEN<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 494<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
17 DECEMBER 1975.<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">

P. A ADJETEY FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

S. ANNANCY 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">

JIAGGE, KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
JJ.A. AND TAYLOR AND ABBAN JJ.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>Abban J.
delivered the judgment of the court. In this application the
plaintiff-respondent-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) is
asking for a review of the judgment of the ordinary bench of the Court of
Appeal delivered on 30 July 1974: see Baiden v. Ansah [1974] 2 G.L.R. 407.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The full
bench on 29 April 1975, sitting in chambers, granted leave but limited argument
to the correctness of the order dismissing both the claim and the counterclaim
(after allowing the appeal of the defendant-appellant-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent)) and the holding that both parties were equally
negligent. The arguments were further limited to quantum of damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent did not file a reply and could not therefore be heard save on the
question of costs. After hearing counsel for the applicant, we have come to the
conclusion that in view of the finding that the applicant and the respondent
were equally to blame, the proper order which the ordinary bench ought to have
made should have been that judgment be given in the court below on both the
claim and the counterclaim and the damages apportioned equally.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
respect, we feel that even though the respondent has not filed any reply,
nevertheless in the interest of justice his counterclaim, in view of the
finding of the ordinary bench, cannot be ignored.<o:p></o:p>The court
below entered judgment for the applicant in the following sums:<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) ¢5,529.11 being the cost of
repairs to the applicant’s vehicle.<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) ¢400.00 being the cost of a
new body for the vehicle<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">(c) ¢140.01 being the cost of new
tarpaulin.<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">(d) ¢1,442.60 being the value of
goods destroyed as a result of 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">(e) Loss of use calculated at
¢90.00 per diem for six days in a week from the date of the accident till the
date of judgment, i.e. 14 June 1972.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We find
that the awards in respect of (a), (b), (c) and (d) are in order and are amply
supported by the evidence; but with regard to the award under (e) we</main>