MANKO vs. RAILWAY AND PORTS AUTHORITY, TAKORADI [1974]DLHC2295

Date	1974-05-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2295

CHARLES CRABBE J.

K. E. AMUA-SEKYI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

CARSON FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1974]DLHC2295
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">MANKO <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;RAILWAY AND PORTS AUTHORITY,
TAKORADI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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;[1974] 2 GLR 258<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:
13 MAY 1974.<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">

K. E.
AMUA-SEKYI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

CHARLES CRABBE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is claiming from the defendant corporation damages for the death of
one Araba Boani her daughter. It is alleged that on 4 October 1972 one Solomon
Kwao Ankatsia, servant or agent of the defendant corporation, negligently
knocked Araba Boani down on the Takoradi-Tarkwa road near the junction leading
to Egyam.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant corporation denied liability and pleadings took their normal course,
the issues to be tried being agreed upon. Counsel agreed also that there was a
preliminary legal issue which should be determined before evidence was heard.
The issue is whether the action is statute-barred?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the defendant corporation contended that on the writ it did appear that the
cause of action arose on 4 October 1972, the day of the accident. Under
subsection (1) of section 19 of the Railway and Ports Act, 1971 (Act 358),
there was a period of limitation up to twelve months within which the action
ought to have been brought. The writ was filed on 12 November 1973, outside the
period limited by the Railway and Ports Act, 1971.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Limitation Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 54), came into operation on 1 January 1973,
that is, two months after the cause of action arose. The Limitation Decree,
1972, repealed section 19 of the Railway and Ports Act, 1971. But he submitted
that the Limitation Decree, 1972, did not affect any cause of action which
arose before it came into force. It applied only to causes of action which
arose after 1 January 1973. The law thus in force at the time the cause of
action arose should be the law to govern the matter. He relied on Maxwell on
Interpretation of Statutes (12th ed.) at p. 215, and on Lewis v. Hughes [1916]
K.B. 831, C.A. He thought that the provisions of section 33 of the Limitation Decree,
1972, did not help the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff argued that the presumption against retrospective application
of statutes did not apply to matters which affect practice and procedure. In
matters of procedure the law was that all alterations were retrospective unless
a contrary intention appeared in the statute concerned. Statutes limiting time
within which an action could be brought or specific steps taken and action
brought before the courts belonged to the class of statutes affecting procedure
and, therefore, such statutes were retrospective. He concluded by citing The
Ydun [1899] P. 236 at pp. 241 and 246, C.A. and Watton v. Watton (1866) L.R. 1
P. &amp;.D. 227.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
provisions of section 19 of the Railway and Ports Act, 1971 (Act 358), provide
for a period of six months in the case of the railways or twelve months in the
case of the ports, within which a suit could be brought against the authority.
I would want to emphasize the word “within.” They also require that one month’s
written notice, at least, shall be given before an action is brought against
the authority.<o:p></o:p>