S. O. K. O. MENSAH vs. ANDOH AND ANOTHER [1979]DLHC1116

Date	1979-11-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1116

ROGER KORSAH J.

DUKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLHC1116
																																						<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" >S. O. K. O. MENSAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANDOH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 774<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:
23 NOVEMBER 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

DUKU 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 1.0pt 0in">

ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ROGER KORSAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is the owner of house No. A2, Subin Hill, Dunkwa-on-Offin. He is by
trade a shopkeeper. He uses one of the rooms in the house as a shop and two
others as storerooms for his merchandise. The whole house comprised seven
rooms.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At about
half past six in the morning of 8 September 1976, a vehicle, No. CR. 3053,
which was carrying workers along Subin Hill street, reversed and entered the
storeroom of the plaintiff at house No. A2, Subin Hill. The impact shook other
parts of the house. The roof caved in and some damage was done to the
plaintiff’s merchandise. The offending vehicle was the property of the second
defendants and it was driven, at the material time, by the first defendant as
servant or agent of the second defendants’ company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 15
March 1977, the plaintiff commenced these proceedings against the defendants by
a writ indorsed as follows:<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"><o:p>&nbsp;</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’s claim against the first and second defendants jointly and severally
is for ¢4,837 general damages for damage caused to the plaintiff’s house No. A2,
Subin Hill, Dunkwa-on-Offin, by the negligent driving of the first defendant,
servant or agent of the second defendants and in the course of his employment
or agency while the first defendant was in charge of vehicle No. CR. 3053, the
property of the second defendants.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This writ
was served on the defendants on 4 April 1977, with a statement of claim in
which the facts above related were set out. By 27 July 1977, no appearance had
been entered by or on behalf of either defendant, interlocutory judgment was
duly entered for the plaintiff on 9 August 1977 on an ex parte application for
judgment. The question of negligence having been settled, the matter was
adjourned for an assessment of the damage sustained by the plaintiff through
the negligence of the defendants.<o:p></o:p>At the
hearing, the plaintiff testified that his house, comprising seven rooms, had
only two rooms roofed with corrugated iron-sheets. Of the three storerooms,
only one was roofed. When the defendants’ vehicle ran into the building, four
rooms, one of which contained merchandise, were destroyed and the merchandise
therein was damaged. One chainsaw machine, valued at ¢1,600 and cash, the sum
of ¢37 were lost. The plaintiff also testified that he traded in merchandise
such as kerosine, matches, robb, mosquito coil and towels, and was making a
profit of about ¢200 a month; and that from the time the accident occurred up
to the time he took action—a period of six months—he had nowhere to ply his
trade. He tried to rent a room but could find none and in consequence lost the
profit that he would have made for those months, which lost profit amounts to
¢1,200. To establish how much it would cost to restore the damaged building to
its former state, the plaintiff wisely employed the services of a valuer by name
John Yirenchi Abu. This gentleman travelled with the plaintiff from Kumasi to a
village by name Atifieso-Kokwado near Dunkwa-on-Offin where the damaged
property was situate to inspect it and assess the cost of replacing the damaged
as well as the weakened parts. He prepared a detailed report of his valuation
which he tendered on behalf of the plaintiff as exhibit A. The sum total of the
valuer’s testimony was that at the time he valued the property he estimated
that the total cost of restoration would be ¢4,650, but having regard to
inflationary trends in the country, this amount, at the time that he testified
in February 1979, would be doubled. That is to say it would now cost the
plaintiff ¢9,300 to restore his property to its former state.<o:p></o:p>