YORTUHOR vs. BRAKO AND ANOTHER [1988]DLHC691

Date	1988-05-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLHC691

BENIN J

R.C.A. AZUMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

RICHARD ASAMOAH FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

[1988]DLHC691
																																						<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" >YORTUHOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BRAKO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, TAMALE] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 429<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:
6
MAY 1988<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">

R.C.A. AZUMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

RICHARD ASAMOAH FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST
DEFENDANT.<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">

BENIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.<o:p></o:p>By an
amended writ and statement of claim filed on 31 January 1986 the plaintiff’s
claim, as administrator of the estate of the late Mohamadu Yortuhor Anane,
against the defendants jointly and severally, is for damages by virtue of the
Civil Liability Act, 1963 (Act 176). The indorsement further stated that the
claim which is for the benefit of the estate of the deceased and his dependants
is for, inter alia, loss of dependency and loss of expectation of life arising
out of the negligent driving of the second defendants’ Mercedes Benz
articulated truck No. GT 2056 by the first defendant, then agent and servant or
both of the second defendant, on or about 21 October 1982 on the Gambaga Scarp
and which negligent driving caused the death of the deceased.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By the
statement of claim the plaintiff stated that he is the administrator of the
estate of the deceased and has obtained letters of administration from this
court on 20 January 1986. He stated that the first defendant was in charge of
the accident vehicle with the authority and permission of the second defendants
who at all material times owned this vehicle. The deceased was a passenger on
board this vehicle which was being driven from Bimbilla to Bawku. As a result
of the negligent driving by the first defendant the vehicle plunged into a deep
valley on a scarp and this resulted in the death of the deceased. The
particulars of negligence pleaded were the following:<o:p></o:p>“(a)
driving at a speed which was excessive in the circumstances; <o:p></o:p>(b)
failing to stop, to slow down, or in any way to drive, manage or control the
said articulated truck so as to avoid it running into a ditch; and <o:p></o:p>(c)
failing to take due maintenance care of the said articulated truck.”<o:p></o:p>He also
said that as far as possible he would rely on the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. The deceased left four dependants, namely his father (the plaintiff
herein) and mother, aged 72 and 60 years respectively, as well as a niece and
nephew aged twelve and ten years respectively. The deceased, a bachelor, was
the sole breadwinner for these four persons. The deceased was a farmer and a
fisherman earning an averaged income of ¢20,000 a month. By reason of his death
these dependants have been deprived of all the benefits they would have
received if the deceased were alive and have thus suffered loss and damage. The
plaintiff therefore claimed as special damages the cost of the post-mortem and
police reports, as well as burial and funeral expenses. By way of general
damages the plaintiff also claimed for loss of dependency, loss of expectation
of life and for pain and suffering.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
defendant after entering appearance by his solicitor took no further step in
this suit. And as far as I am aware the plaintiff also took no further step in
the suit against the first defendant. The case was thus contested between the
plaintiff and the second defendants only. The second defendants in their
statement of defence admitted owning the accident vehicle. Their defence
consisted of four main and distinct grounds, viz:<o:p></o:p>(a) That the plaintiff had no locus standi at the time he
commenced the action —paragraph 3;<o:p></o:p>(b) That this court has no jurisdiction in this matter or at
all — paragraph 12;<o:p></o:p>