WOLEDZI vs. AKUFO-ADDO AND ANOTHER [1980]DLHC2173

Date	1980-03-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2173

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

MICHAEL ATADIKA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AMOAKO-GLOVER FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[1980]DLHC2173
																																						<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" >WOLEDZI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>AKUFO-ADDO AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 421<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:
20 MARCH 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">

MICHAEL ATADIKA FOR THE PLAINTIFF. <o:p></o:p>

AMOAKO-GLOVER FOR THE DEFENDANTS<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 J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
case with a very checkered history, and it is a case which has been fought and
defended with tooth and nail. The writ of summons was filed on 18 September
1967 and summons for directions was taken on 21 December 1967. Several factors
have militated against the speedy disposal of the case. Hearing began on 21
March 1968 before Anterkyi J.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He took
two witnesses for the plaintiff and then after a number of adjournments, he
decided not to hear the case and caused it to be placed before another judge.
After several adjournments before another judge, the matter eventually came on
for trial before Charles Crabbe J. (as he then was) and judgment was delivered
on 15 January 1969. He dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and the plaintiff
appealed against the judgment. I am informed by Mr. Atadika, counsel for the
plaintiff, who has been in the case throughout, and I read a note to this
effect from the record of proceedings, that the record book containing the
whole of the evidence taken by Charles Crabbe J. could not be traced.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
result being that the record of proceedings presented at the Court of Appeal
was not complete, it did not include the great bulk of the proceedings before
Charles Crabbe J. It contained only his judgment. The Court of Appeal therefore
did not hear the appeal, it ordered a re-trial. This is the judgment of the
re-trial.<o:p></o:p>By his
amended writ of summons, the plaintiff claims ¢100,000 damages for personal
injuries and loss sustained by him as a result of the defendants’ negligence
and breach of statutory duty. Originally, the writ was indorsed with ¢25,000
claim; later it was amended to read ¢50,000 and finally ¢100,000. The basis of
the claim is that on 14 January 1967 the plaintiff was injured in an accident
which occurred on the Ring Road involving the plaintiff’s car and the first defendant’s
car. The circumstances of the accident are so much in dispute that it is
necessary to reproduce the facts as recounted by each party.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s version of how the accident happened, in his own words, is 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">“I was
driving along the Ring Road and I was in the right lane near the island. I was
moving towards the Police Headquarters. When I was almost opposite the UNESCO
building, I had a burst tyre. It was the right back tyre. I stopped and parked
the car on the island. In 1967 we were driving left, so I was driving on the
side of the Mandarin Restaurant . . . I got out of the car, removed the spare
tyre from the car, and took out the jack, I jacked the car, removed the
punctured tyre and fixed the spare tyre. Then I started to remove the jack.
When I was removing the jack, I heard the noise of an approaching car from
behind me. Then I heard the impact; the vehicle hit me from behind. I did not
know what happened again.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff
was driving an Oxford Morris car No. SG 400 which he had converted to a taxi.
After the accident, the plaintiff was rendered unconscious, and he remained in
a deep coma for a period of three weeks at the hospital. On regaining
consciousness, he learnt that the car which hit him was the first defendant’s
car. He suffered head injuries with a “fracture of the right parietal and the
petrons temporal bones of the skull extending down to the base.” As a result of
the fractures of the skull and the contusion of the brain and its appendages,
he suffered blindness in the right eye and deafness in the right ear. There is
right facial palsy, left hemiplegia and slurred speech. He also had a fracture
of the left ulna which would not heal, so i</main>