GHANA CARGO HANDLING CO., LTD. vs. AMAH’S LADIES & GENTS TAILORING MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. [1978]DLCA1142

GHANA CARGO HANDLING CO., LTD. vs. AMAH’S LADIES & GENTS TAILORING MANUFACTURI... [1978]DLCA1142

Date	1978-07-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1978]DLCA1142

LASSEY JA

SOWAH JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPELLANTS.

OWUSU YAW FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1978]DLCA1142
																																						<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" >GHANA CARGO HANDLING CO., LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMAH’S LADIES &amp; GENTS TAILORING MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 296<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 JULY 1974<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">

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

OWUSU YAW 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">

LASSEY, SOWAH AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.A.<o:p></o:p>In this
appeal the plaintiffs are the respondents and the defendants are the
appellants. The appeal raises a question of a contract of bailment for hire of
work and labour for reward of a special kind in which the liability of the
bailee was limited by force of statute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants appealed from a judgment of Edusei J. in the High Court, Sekondi,
whereby he allowed the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for the loss of their
goods from a warehouse.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
of the case are simple and straightforward and virtually undisputed, as are the
values of the missing goods. The legal point with which the appeal is concerned
relates to the extent of the defendants’ liability for the loss of the
plaintiffs’ consignment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiffs
are a company carrying on the business of tailoring and manufacturing in
Kumasi. It seemed the company had done regular business as importers at
Takoradi Harbour. On 20 September 1970, the plaintiffs received a consignment
of unloaded cargo containing four cases of textile material called crimplene
from the United Kingdom per the vessel S.S. Kabala. The consignment was landed
at Takoradi Harbour. The plaintiffs gave the defendants an order to collect the
four cases of textile material from the ship and deliver them to the
consignees, i.e. the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants are a company of master porters who carry on the business of cargo
handling and provide stevedoring services at Takoradi Harbour. They collect
consignees’ goods from the ship, and transport them into a warehouse provided
and controlled by the Railway and Ports Authority set up under the Ports Act,
1962 (Act 115), and after routine customs formalities have been performed
deliver them to the consignee. The defendants have no bonded warehouse of their
own, and they are not wharfingers and warehousemen who, incidental to their
business, were responsible for the safe custody of the consignees’ goods at the
storage place in the Railway and Ports Authority warehouse. They are not agents
for the Ports and Harbour Authority who were responsible for custody of goods
stored in the warehouse controlled by their officials. The general nature of
defendants’ work as master porters was essentially commercial, and for their
services in handling the consignees’ goods from the ship until delivery, they
charge a small remuneration or fee. Their method of providing the services of
stevedoring and shore-handling of cargo at the harbour is determined partly by
regulations made by the Railway and Ports Authority, and partly by the custom
of business practice and dealings in vogue generally at the harbour between
importers and shippers. They carry on their business at the harbour site under
licence from the Railway and Ports Authority.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 20
September 1970, the defendants’ servants collected the four cases of textile
materials and delivered them at the warehouse pending clearance by customs
officials. The four cases were received into the warehouse in the condition in
which the defendants’ servants collected them from the shippers. The defendants
were paid a fee of N¢1.85 by the plaintiffs for the services.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
defendants had stored the plaintiff’s goods saf</main>