ANTWI AND ANOTHER vs. RAMAN AND OTHERS [1991]DLHC1971

Date	1991-02-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC1971

ARYEETEY J.

MRS ANYADI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

KYERE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1991]DLHC1971
																																						<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">ANTWI AND ANOTHER<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">RAMAN AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 253<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: 6
FEBRUARY 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MRS ANYADI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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">

KYERE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ARYEETEY J.<o:p></o:p>By their writ of summons the plaintiffs claim against the
defendants jointly and severally:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i).&nbsp;&nbsp; “General and special damages
for serious damage caused to the plaintiffs’ Mercedes Benz commercial bus No AM
6456 when it was negligently run into at Accra New Town by the second and third
defendants’ vehicle No. AK 7125 then under the management and control of the
first defendant who was at all material times operating in the normal course of
duty as the servant and agent of the second and third defendants. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii).
Any other reliefs found due.”<o:p></o:p>As it turned out only the second defendant, the Social Security
Bank Ltd., entered appearance and filed their statement of defence. Even
through the first and third defendants were served with the writ of summons
through a substituted process they did not enter appearance. Therefore on 15
June 1989 the plaintiffs obtained interlocutory judgment against them in
default. However, the assessment of damages was shelved until the hearing of
the matter between the plaintiffs and the second defendant.<o:p></o:p>As between the plaintiffs and the second defendant the most
relevant issues in my view are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:38.6pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether the second and third
defendants were the joint owners of Canter bus No. AK 7125; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:38.6pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether the first defendant
was or must be deemed to be in charge of the vehicle as the agent and servant
of both the second and third defendants or either of them; and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:38.6pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:
-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
whether the second defendant
was entitled to repudiate liability despite the fact that the vehicle is
registered and insured in its name as well as that of the third defendant as
the joint owners thereof.<o:p></o:p>The stand of the second defendant as presented in their statement
of defence is that in 1980 the bank financed the purchase of bus No. AK 7125 by
the third defendant who had possession, full control and its management for his
transport business, to the exclusion of the second defendant. In line with that
the first defendant was an agent of the third defendant. The reason w</main>