OSEI vs. OKUTU AND ANOTHER [1977]DLHC1385

Date	1977-07-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLHC1385

EDUSEI J.

CHARLES BIRIKORANG FOR THE APPLICANT.

COL F. G. BERNASKO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1977]DLHC1385
																																						<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" >OSEI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OKUTU AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]1 GLR 324<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:
22 JULY 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">

CHARLES BIRIKORANG FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

COL F. G. BERNASKO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is claiming damages from the defendants for personal injuries and
consequential loss as a result of the negligent driving of the first defendant,
the servant of the second defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff has brought an application under Order 14, r. 1 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), for judgment on the ground that
there is no defence to the action. The plaintiff in his supporting affidavit
has deposed to the fact that the accident happened on 9 December 1975 as a
result of the negligent driving of the first defendant. The affidavit further
states that the first defendant was put before the District Court, Keta, on
charges of careless driving and negligently causing harm and he pleaded guilty
to the said charges. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a fine of
¢25 or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The plaintiff further in
his affidavit states that the plea of guilty was in reference to the accident
of 9 December 1975, that resulted in injuries to the plaintiff. Again the
plaintiff in his supporting affidavit, paragraph (1), refers to particulars in
the statement of claim which state the circumstances leading to the accident
that caused injuries to the plaintiff who was himself in the vehicle No. GF
5308. Indeed he saw exactly what happened. It is stated in paragraph (3) of the
statement of claim as follows: “On reaching Norvie on the said Denu to Keta
road the vehicle went off the road, climbed a heap of broken cement blocks and
finally somersaulted.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It cannot
be gainsaid that the reference to a plea of guilty by the plaintiff in his
affidavit is meant to show that the first defendant admitted his act of
negligence which has given rise to the instant proceedings. The defendants have
not put in any affidavit and if they had done so they might have destroyed the
effect of the plaintiff’s affidavit by making reference to some point of
defence on the issue of liability. But this they have never attempted to do.
They chose to remain passive. However, after the arguments have concluded and
the matter was adjourned for consideration and decision, the defendants, by
their solicitor, filed what purported to be a defence which was nothing but a
traverse in general terms. This defence in itself offends the rules of
pleadings, and particularly Order 19, r. 4 of L.N. 140A, which requires
pleadings to state material facts on which a party relies either for his claim
or defence. By their statement of defence no one can tell the sort of defence
the defendants will put up at the trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me that the plea of guilty by the first defendant in such circumstances as
in this case amounted to an admission of his negligent driving, and this
unchallenged averment in the plaintiff’s affidavit proves the liability of the
first defendant. As already stated there is no affidavit by either of the
defendants and the admission of guilty by the first defendant who drove the
vehicle in the course of his employment as a servant of the second defendant
clearly justifies a judgment being entered against both defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In coming
to this conclusion I have derived much assistance from the English Court of
Appeal decision of Dummer v. Brown [1953] 1 All E.R. 1158. A similar conclusion
was reached by Hayfron-Benjamin J. (as he then was) in the case of Yeboah v.
MacKenzie, High Court, Accra, 15 February 1965, unreported; digested in (1965)
C.C. 139.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
result I enter judgment under Order 14, r. 1 for the plaintiff against the
defendant for damages to be assessed as requested in the plaintiff’s summons.<o:p></o:p>