ANAMAN vs. MENSAH [1992]DLCA4319

Date	1992-07-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLCA4319

AMPIAH JA

ADJABENG JA

LUTTERODT JA

CAB-ADDAE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

[1992]DLCA4319
																																						<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" >ANAMAN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MENSAH<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R&nbsp; 798 – 701&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 22 JULY 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

CAB-ADDAE
FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

AMPIAH
JA, ADJABENG JA, LUTTERODT JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>AMPIAH
JA. The plaintiffs in this action were the parents of Master Tawiah Anaman who
was killed in a motor accident. The plaintiffs, as administrator and
administratrix respectively of the estate of the deceased, took action against
the defendants for damages for negligence resulting in the death of their son.<o:p></o:p>The
1st defendant was the owner-driver of vehicle No GN 3588 which was involved in
the accident, and which had been insured at the time by the 2nd defendant.<o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial, the learned trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiffs
and awarded them a total of six hundred thousand cedis with costs of sixty
thousand cedis against the defendants.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants did not appeal against the judgment. The plaintiffs however have
appealed against the judgment on the damages awarded.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiffs contended that “having regard to the overwhelming evidence
as to the loss suffered by the appellants, as a result of the death of Master
Tawiah Anaman, and the excellent performance of the deceased at school, the
damages of ¢600,000 awarded the appellants were woefully inadequate”.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants’) did not claim any
special damages. They however claimed for (i) loss of service to them and the
grandmother, (ii) loss of prospective income and (iii) burial and funeral
expenses.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge found that the deceased rendered some services to his
parents and also acted as a house help to his aged grandmother. He however did
not accept wholly the amount for services rendered; he did not state how much
of the services he accepted and how much he would award the parents and the
grandmother for the loss of such services. The learned trial judge also
accepted that some funeral expenses were incurred but not to the extent
claimed.<o:p></o:p>As
stated earlier the damages claimed by the plaintiffs were general although
specific amounts were mentioned in both the statement of claim and the
evidence, for certain items. The learned trial judge awarded a bulk sum of
¢600,000 as damages. This, appellants regard as woefully inadequate.<o:p></o:p>The
award of damages is at the discretion of the trial judge. Once a basis has been
shown as to how the damages have been arrived at, unless the basis is wrong, an
appellate court would have no justification for interfering with the award. In
the instant case even though the learned trial judge made certain findings upon
which he made his award, it is not clear how he arrived at the bulk figure.<o:p></o:p>Section
16(1) of the Civil Liability Act 1963 (Act 176) provides:<o:p></o:p>“Where the death of a person is caused
by the fault of another such as would have entitled the party injured, but for
his death, to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the
person who would have been so liable shall be liable to an action for damages
for the benefit of the dependants of the deceased.”<o:p></o:p>Section
18 of the Act provides that:<o:p></o:p>“The damages under section 16 of the
Act shall be -<o:p></o:p>(a) the total of such amounts (if any)
as the court considers proportionate to the loss resulting from the death to
each of the dependants, respectively, for whom or on whose behalf the action is
brought...”<o:p></o:p>Sub-section
5 of section 18 of the Act provides further that:<o:p></o:p>“(5) In addition, damages may be
awarded in respect of expenses actually incurred by the deceased before his
death and in respect of funeral and other expenses incurred by the dependants
or the personal representative by reason of the wrongful act.”<o:p></o:p>The
burial and funeral expenses claimed were ¢30,000. Even though the judge did not
accept wholly the amount, he did not say how much of this he accepted. I would
award the plaintiffs ¢29,000 for burial and funeral expenses.<o:p></o:p>The
late Tawiah Anaman was a 13-year old Form 2 pupil of the AME Zion Middle
School, Aboom, Cape Coast. The evidence shows that he was a brilliant pupil
with a bright future. The judge found that he rendered services to his parents
and grandmother who were all dependants. The judge did not however accept
wholly the extent of the said service; he did not quantify how much each of the
dependants had lost by the death of the deceased, though in the end he awarded
a lump sum.<o:p></o:p>It
has, however, for long been settled that damages are not awarded as a solatium
for the bereaved but as compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by the
dependants of the deceased as a consequence of his death. See Blake v Midland
Rly [1852] 18 Q B 93; Mallett v McMonagle [1969] 2 WLR 767, HL. If no pecuniary
loss is proved, therefore, the defendant is entitled to succeed - Barnet v
Cohen [1921] 2 KB 461; but it is not necessary that pecuniary advantage should
actually have been derived from the deceased before his death. Damages are to
be calculated in reference to a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit.
So, in Taff Vale Rly Co v Jenkins [1913)] AC 1 where the deceased was an
intelligent girl of 16 who had almost completed her apprenticeship as a dress
maker, a jury's</main>