VANDERPUYE vs. PIONEER SHOE FACTORY LTD. [1980]DLCA1638

Date	1980-07-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1638

ARCHER JA

ANIN JA

CHARLES CRABBE J.A.

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLCA1638
																																						<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" >VANDERPUYE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>PIONEER SHOE FACTORY LTD.<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1980] GLR 181<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:
28 JULY 1980<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">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

TSATSU TSIKATA 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">

ARCHER, ANIN AND CHARLES CRABBE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.A.<o:p></o:p>In 1967,
the appellant’s agent let a warehouse in a complex of buildings, known as Derby
Works, in Accra, to the respondents, manufacturers of shoes and footwear, under
an oral agreement at a monthly rent of ¢200. The warehouse was used by the
respondents mainly for the storage of manufactured footwear and raw materials
like leather, rubber soles and rubber sheets.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 29
November 1972, at about 6 p.m. fire was detected in the warehouse by residents
in the complex and the Fire Brigade was called in. Notwithstanding the efforts
of the fire-fighting team, the warehouse together with an annex used as offices
(but not let to the respondents) was completely burnt down. The respondents
lost all the goods stored in the warehouse. The sparks from the fire damaged
property in an adjoining house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant, as the landlord, then issued a writ of summons at the High Court,
Accra, and claimed damages from the respondents for damages caused by the fire
to the warehouse and the annex with its contents. The basis for the appellant’s
claim was summarised in paragraphs (3), (4), (7) and (10) of the statement of
claim as:<o:p></o:p>“(3) In
the evening of 29 November 1972, a devastating fire broke out in the said
warehouse owing to the defendant-company’s negligent storage of quantities of
the highly combustible rubber, plastic and artificial leather forming the bulk
of the materials used by the defendant-company in its manufactures, or
alternatively, owing to the negligent dropping of a lighted cigarette but or
match or other burning matter by an employee of the defendant-company in the
said warehouse. (4) Further or in the alternative, assuming but not admitting
that the fire was not negligently caused, the defendant-company either
unlawfully allowed the fire to escape or was negligent in allowing it to spread
northward beyond the said warehouse to an adjoining part of Derby Works known
as the ‘extension office’. <o:p></o:p>(7) By
failing to remove the unsightly mass of charred remains of rubber, plastics and
artificial leather the defendant-company has committed and continues to commit
a nuisance of waterlogged rubbish which is breeding mosquitoes and an
infestation of rats to the danger and discomfort and annoyance of the plaintiff
in the unburnt residential parts of Derby Works. <o:p></o:p>(10) The
defendant-company has unlawfully refused to pay rents since 31 October 1973, on
the groundthat it has lost the use of the gutted warehouse.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s case therefore rested on the common law ranging from the law of
negligence, the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330,
nuisance and to the law relating to recovery of rent. At the trial, the
appellant called his relative, Evelyn Nortey, and his own daughter, Miss
Okailey Vanderpuye. These two ladies saw the outbreak of the fire in the
warehouse which later spread. Two fire officers also gave evidence on their
operation to extinguish the fire that night. In addition, the then
warehouse-keeper employed by the respondents also gave evidence as to the
condition in which he left the warehouse before closing for the day. There was
also evidence on the extent of the damage caused by the fire. The respondents
did not give evidence and did not call any witnesses although they had
counterclaimed for the refund of rents paid to the appellant after the
warehouse had been gutted by the fire.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned trial judge in his judgment held that: (1) t</main>