BOHAM vs. EVONNA [1987]DLHC1991

Date	1987-08-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1991

KPEGAH J.

J. P. K. MENSA-BONSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

E. F. SHORT FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1987]DLHC1991
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">BOHAM<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">EVONNA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1992] 1 GLR 287<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 10 AUGUST
1987<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J. P. K. MENSA-BONSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

E. F. SHORT FOR THE DEFENDANT.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF KPEGAH J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff in a writ he issued on 28 September 1983 claims from
the defendant general and special damages as a result of the negligence of the
defendant’s servant who was then in charge of the defendant’s vehicle No G.J.
9578. The accident occurred on 28 January 1981. The particulars of the special
damages were given as: (a) cost of repairs on the plaintiff ‘s vehicle—¢22,850;
and (b) loss of use—¢500 per diem from 28 July 1981 to date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>On 26 May 1986 the plaintiff obtained an interlocutory judgment in
default of appearance after a long lull in the proceedings. The proceedings
before me relate only to the assessment of damages. The plaintiff admits that
the vehicle has still not been repaired up to date and rather tendered in
evidence an estimate from Messrs Bartholomew (Gh.) Ltd., the accredited
representatives who work on Ford cars—the type of car being used by the
plaintiff. The estimated cost of repairs is ¢22,850. This forms the basis for
the special damages being claimed for repairs. The estimate was tendered as
exhibit B. The plaintiff called no witness.<o:p></o:p>The defendant called a witness from the State Insurance
Corporation who are his insurers. This witness testified that there had been
settlement with the plaintiff’s solicitor for the payment to the plaintiff of
an amount of ¢7,500 in full satisfaction of all claims by the plaintiff who
then signed a discharge form in favour of the insurance company. It was later
that the plaintiff resiled from the settlement and the cheque could not be
issued to him. He said the estimate submitted by the plaintiff from Bartholomew
was rejected because certain items were not covered by the police report as
having been directly caused by the accident, e.g. battery which was costed at
¢2,500.<o:p></o:p>This case is devoid of both factual and legal problems of any
serious dimensions since the facts which tend to erect legal obstacles in the
path of the plaintiff were admitted by himself. The plaintiff, as already
pointed out, is claiming special damages in the nature of cost of repairs of
his vehicle, and loss of use.<o:p></o:p>As is pointed out in Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd ed.), Vol.
11, p. 218, special damages are compensation for special damage which is not
presumed by law to be the natural and probable or direct consequence of the act
or omission complained of but which does in fact result in the circumstances of
the particular case and of the injured party’s claim to be compensated. In the
case of Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag v. Hutchison [1905] A.C. 515 at 525-526, H.L.
(S.C.) Lord Macnaghten said:<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">‘“. . . Special damages’ . . . are such as the law will not infer
from the nature of the act. They do not follow in ordinary course. They are
exceptional in their character, and, therefore, they must be claimed specially
and proved strictly.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.) It does appear, therefore, that before a
plaintiff can succeed where he is claiming special damages he must as a first
step specifically claim the said damages and give warning of it in his
pleadings so that there may be no surprise at the trial. The plaintiff must
then at the trial strictly prove that particular damage. In proving the special
damages, the plaintiff must need prove that it goes beyond the general damage
which flows from the tortious act of the defendant. Unless a plaintiff approaches
his claim for special damage with such seriousness he cannot succeed.<o:p></o:p>In the present case, the special damages being claimed by the
plaintiff relate to cost of repairs of his vehicle. This was specially pleaded
by him. That is about the only thing done positively by the plaintiff towards
his claim for special damages. The only evidence led by him is to tender an
estimate for the repairs prepared by Bartholomew (Ghana) Ltd. I have already
indicated that this estimate was disputed by the insurance company because some
of the items included could not be attributed to the accident. Although the
plaintiff can be said to have properly pleaded the special damages he
considered himself entitled to, he has failed to prove same strictly to entitle
him to an award under this head. A case in point, and which can be said to be
on all fours with the instant case, is the <o:p></o:p>case of Ahenkora v. Moubarak [1972] 2 G.L.R. 429. The second part
of the hea</main>