ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CORPORATION [1976]DLCA1237

Date	1976-12-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA1237

AMISSAH JA

JIAGGE JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

MENSAH-BONSU (PREMPEH AND DICKSON WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

AYIM OWUSU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA1237
																																						<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" >ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CORPORATION <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; vs. <o:p></o:p>GRUNSHIE <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 1 GLR 440<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:
31 DECEMBER
1976<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">

MENSAH-BONSU (PREMPEH AND DICKSON WITH HIM) FOR
THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

AYIM OWUSU 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">

AMISSAH, JIAGGE AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>This was
an appeal by the defendants (the Ashanti Goldfields Corporation) against the
decision of the Circuit Court, Kumasi, delivered on 29 September 1972. The
plaintiff was an employee of the defendant-corporation and claimed that on the
day he was injured in an accident he stood at the head of a queue waiting to
enter the cage to go down into the defendants’ goldmine at Obuasi where he
worked as a truck boy. When the cage arrived, he was the first to enter but
although the cage could take only eight people, the defendants negligently
permitted thirteen others to enter after him. The cage was consequently
over-loaded and during the descent, due to overcrowding, those in the cage
struggled for space and as a result, he was pushed to the wall of the cage and
sustained injuries. He had fracture of the left humerus and also suffered
severe shock.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff depended on his allegation that the cage was overcrowded and that he
sustained injuries when there was a struggle for space on the descent to the
mine. The plaintiff, however, failed to convince the court below that the cage
was overcrowded. There was evidence before the court that the cage carried
eight people and not fourteen people, that the cage conformed to specification
and that the injury to the plaintiff could have been prevented, if “the
plaintiff stood in the cage with his hands by his side.” The court held that
the plaintiff failed to prove his case and that the injury he suffered was not
due to any negligence on the part of the defendant corporation. The trial
court, however, proceeded to award ¢600.00 damages to the plaintiff because he
had suffered pain.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant corporation appealed on the ground that “in view of his finding that
the accident resulting in the injuries to the plaintiff was not caused by the
negligence of the defendants, their servants or agents, the learned judge was
wrong in awarding damages” and that, in any event, the damages were excessive.
The plaintiff also cross-appealed against the finding respecting negligence -
that there was sufficient evidence on record from which the learned trial judge
ought to have found negligence on the part of the defendant corporation.
Further, that the damages awarded for pain and suffering alone, without regard
to the respondent’s permanent disability, were unreasonable.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Taking
the plaintiff’s cross-appeal on negligence first, the plaintiff in order to
recover compensation for injuries suffered must prove that the defendants were
negligent and that his injuries were to be attributed to the defendants’
negligence. This burden of proof is clearly on the plaintiff. He does not
succeed if at the end, he leaves the case on even scales. He must satisfy the
court that his injuries were occasioned by the negligence of the defendants or
their agents. This the plaintiff failed to do and the court accepted the
evidence that the cage was in no way overloaded. I do not see how this finding
of fact (supported by the evidence before the court) that the defendants were
not negligent can be disturbed. The claim based as it was on negligence, should
have failed, the action be dismissed, and no damages awarded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
the failure to prove negligence does not affect the rights of the plaintiff under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174),s.24(5) of which provides:<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">“If in
proceedings independently of this Act or on appeal, it is determined that the
employer is not liable under such proceedings the Court in which such
proceedings are taken or the appellate tribunal may proceed to determine
whether compensation under this Act is liable to be paid to the plaintiff and
may assess the amount of compensation so payable, but may deduct from such
compensation any extra costs which in the opinion of the Court or appellate
tribunal have been incurred by the employer by reason of the proceedings having
been taken independently of this Act.”<o:p></o:p>