KESIWAH vs. JAJA [1976]DLCA397

Date	1976-04-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA397

AZU CRABBE C.J.

SOWAH J.A

FRANCOIS J.A.

E. O. APPIAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

R. ALHASSAN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA397
																																						<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" >KESIWAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>JAJA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 280<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:
12 APRIL 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">

E. O. APPIAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. ALHASSAN 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">

AZU CRABBE C.J., SOWAH AND FRANCOIS
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>Francois
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The incidents which gave rise to this
appeal occurred on 23 November 1965. The plaintiff on that date, sustained
serious injuries when the defendant’s vehicle on which she was travelling,
careered off course and plunged into a ditch.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff claimed damages for negligence, particulars of which she listed and
then concluded with the usual reliance on the maxim of res ipsa loquitur.<o:p></o:p>In
denying negligence the defendant pleaded a latent defect, which he formulated
in the three paragraphs recapitulated hereunder:<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) The
defendant denies paragraph (2) of the statement of claim and says the lorry
went off the road as a result of a sudden break of the steering arm which
rendered the steering beyond control. (3) As to paragraph (3) of the statement
of claim the defendant says the driver did everything possible to stop, steer
and control the vehicle to avert the accident but failed because of the sudden
break of the steering arm of the vehicle. (4) The defendant says that the
vehicle was properly maintained and had no defective steering until the sudden
break of the steering arm just before the lorry went off the road.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For these
reasons the defendant urged the maxim res ipsa loquitur could not apply. The
whole issue for determination in this appeal therefore is whether the defendant
is right in this contention.<o:p></o:p>Where a
plea of latent mechanical defect is urged as exculpatory of negligence, a
burden is cast on the defendant to show that the defect was not discoverable by
the exercise of reasonable care and consequently the accident occurred without
any contributory fault.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
a host of authority for the proposition that a latent defect can only avail as
a defence if this is established see Ritchie v. Western Scottish Motor Traction
Co., Ltd. 1935 S.L.T. 13; Basted v. Cozens Sutcliffe Ltd. [1954] 2 All E.R
735n; Roe v. Minister of Health [1954] 2 Q.B. 66, C.A.; Barkway v. South Wales
Transport Co., Ltd, [1950] 1 All E.R. 392, H.L.; Edmund Davies L.J. in
Henderson v. Henry E. Jenkins &amp; Sons [1969] 1 All E.R. 401 at p. 411, C.A.
put the principle succinctly thus: “if a defendant seeks to rely ... on a
latent defect as the sole cause of the accident, it is incumbent on him to
establish this.” At the trial in this case the plaintiff gave evidence of the
accident, her injuries and her medical and other losses. The defendant declined
to give evidence. The learned trial judge, however, came down severely on the
plaintiff for making what he described as allegations she failed to prove. The
learned trial judge said:<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">“The
plaintiff said, inter alia, she did not notice anything abnormal before the
lorry started going into the bush which made them shout. She said further that
she did not know if the steering wheel or rod got broken to cause the lorry to
go into the bush and nobody told her either. How then did she come by those
particulars of negligence which she specifically pleaded, namely, that the
vehicle had defective steering and that the vehicle was not properly
maintained? . . . The plaintiff by pleading a defective steering arm proffered
to know sufficiently the cause of the accident. Res ipsa loquitur will not
avail her.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned judge then concluded against the plaintiff on her failure to p</main>