ADDAI vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER [1976]DLHC335

Date	1976-06-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC335

MENSA BOISON J.

S. K. AKOTO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

C. AGBANU SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1976]DLHC335
																																						<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" >ADDAI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 412<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:
14 JUNE 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">

S. K. AKOTO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

C. AGBANU, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
DEFENDANTS.<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>This is a
claim under the Civil Liability Act, 1963 (Act 176). The plaintiff who was the
father of one Efia Ampoma (deceased) claims as personal representative of the
deceased from the defendants jointly and severally “general damages for the
sudden and untimely death of his daughter, Efia Ampoma, through the negligent
driving of the second defendant, the servant of the Ministry of Education,
Sunyani, in the course of his employment.” [His lordship here referred to the
statement of claim and continued:] Briefly the plaintiff’s daughter, a school
girl of fifteen years old was, on 16 February 1973, at Sunyani, knocked down
and killed by a lorry driven by the second defendant in circumstances that
clearly spelt negligence. The first defendant, representing the Ministry of
Education as the employers of the second defendant, filed what may be described
as a token defence clearly meant to bide time to settle the claim.<o:p></o:p>On 6
April 1976, the learned senior state attorney at Sunyani appeared as counsel
for the defendants and announced, according to his brief, the terms of
settlement for a judgment of the court. The terms were as follows:<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;
¢<o:p></o:p>(a) Loss
of dependency .. .. .. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2,000.00<o:p></o:p>(b)
Funeral expenses &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;200.00<o:p></o:p>(c) Loss
of expectation of life &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;250.00<o:p></o:p>(d)
Counsel’s costs &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;100.00<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For
reasons which I shall set out presently, I declined to enter the judgment asked
for; and as counsel for the plaintiff was absent from the hearing, I adjourned
the matter with a request that he appears to make any submissions on the points
I had taken on the terms of the settlement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
point was that particulars of loss of dependency should be pleaded to show, as
foundation for evidence, that the plaintiff could be said to be a beneficiary
of “a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit [or money’s worth] from the
continuance of life” of the deceased daughter, as stated in the headnote to
Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins [1913] A.C. 1, H.L. In assessing such
prospective damages the court has to have regard to the facts of the deceased’s
contribution at the time of her death. “Because in most cases the most reliable
guide as to what would happen in the future if the deceased had lived is what
did in fact happen in the past when he was alive...” per Diplock L.J. (as he
then was) in Malyon v. Plummer [1963] 2 W.L.R. 1213 at p. 1226 , C.A.<o:p></o:p>Mr.
Akoto, counsel for the plaintiff, in effect invited me to presume that damages
would naturally flow from the fact of the </main>