ARCTON vs. ACCRA-TEMA CITY COUNCIL [1977]DLHC1236

Date	1977-03-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1236

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW AG.J.

J. ALARAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

C. C. LOKKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1977]DLHC1236
																																						<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" >ARCTON <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ACCRA-TEMA CITY COUNCIL <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 2 GLR 43<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:
11 MARCH 1977<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">

J. ALARAH 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">

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW AG.J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CECILIA
KORANTENG-ADDOW AG.J.<o:p></o:p>The defendants’
counsel in this case has taken a preliminary objection to the plaintiff’s
claim. He has taken the point of limitation and submitted that the action is
statute-barred. To appreciate the delicate points involved in this matter it
will be necessary to give in chronological order the events leading to the
issue of the writ.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 4
January 1970 the plaintiff was knocked down by a vehicle belonging to the
defendant council and driven by their servant. The plaintiff sustained
injuries; her injuries were very grave; she was ten months in hospital, and
another ten months as an out-patient.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
meantime, the solicitor who was then acting for her wrote on 11 August 1970 to
the defendants, informing them of the accident and inquiring whether the
defendants accepted liability. On 19 September 1970 the defendants by their
solicitor replied, accepting full liability for the payment of compensation to
the plaintiff. This has turned out to be a very important letter. It is the
bedrock of the plaintiff’s answer to the point taken by the defendants. So much
depends on it that it will be relevant to produce it here. It reads:<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">“I
acknowledge receipt of your letter No. Misc/70/330 dated 11 August 1970 and
have to inform you that the council accepts full liability for the payment of
compensation to your client. I must also advise that the vehicle concerned has
been comprehensively insured with the Royal Exchange Assurance whose address in
Accra is P.O. Box 50, Ghana House, Accra. By a copy of this letter I am informing
the insurance company to expect your claim.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
signed by the solicitor for the defendants and it is not marked “without
prejudice.”<o:p></o:p>On
receipt of this letter, counsel for the plaintiff did nothing because the
plaintiff was still in hospital. A medical report could not be issued until
October 1971. Even though the plaintiff’s solicitor was told to send his claim
to the defendants’ insurers, he merely wrote on 17 August 1971 inquiring
whether they would be willing to settle. On 15 September 1971 the Guardian
Royal Exchange Assurance Co., the defendants’ insurers, wrote setting up the
Local Government Act, 1961 (Act 54), as a bar to the claim. They claimed that
the claim was statute-barred. Subsequently, the plaintiff’s solicitor in a
letter dated 26 November 1971 reported to the defendants of the repudiation of
liability by their insurers and by the same letter gave the requisite one
month’s notice under section 132 of Act 54 to commence an action against the
council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
statement of claim no reference was made of any admission or acceptance of
liability by the defendants. In their statement of defence the council pleaded
that being a body corporate established under the Local Government Act, 1961
(Act 54), the action should have been commenced within twelve months from the
date of accrual of the plaintiff’s right of action. Since this action was
commenced outside the limitation period, the defendants plead that this claim
is statute-barred. In this ruling I am to determine whether the plea is maintainable.
No evidence was led in this case. Both counsel agreed to argue the legal points
involved, and by consent all relevant documents were tendered.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
points raised by the defend</main>