AMETOENENU AND ANOTHER vs. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1993]DLCA5037

Date	1993-04-08
Suit No.	[1992 – 93] 4 G B R 1525 – 1531 C.A
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA5037

AMPIAH JA

ESSIEM JA

ADJABENG JA

DR W C EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ADU-AMANKWA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1993]DLCA5037
																																						<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" >AMETOENENU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STATE TRANSPORT
CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL]<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] 4 G B R 1525 – 1531
C.A&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: 8 APRIL 1993<o:p></o:p>

ADU-AMANKWA
FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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, ESSIEM JA, ADJABENG JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADJABENG JA. <o:p></o:p>At
about 11 am on 16 December 1986, William Karikari Appau, a driver and servant
of the State Transport Corporation, the plaintiffs-respondents in this appeal,
took charge of the corporation’s bus with registration number AM 9528 with
passengers on board and started for Wa in the Upper West Region. He was,
according to his evidence the only driver assigned to that bus that day. The
said driver, who gave evidence as the first witness for the plaintiff, drove
the vehicle till he reached a village called Sawla where he stopped to enable a
passenger alight. According to this witness, he reached this village at about
10 pm. After the passenger had alighted, he took off again and when he had done
about three miles, something happened. The witness said he saw the light of an
on-coming vehicle. He continued as follows:<o:p></o:p>“I then dipped my head lights. It was
a rough dusty road. I then gave way to the on-coming vehicle to pass by going
to the right. As soon as the on coming vehicle passed I switched on my
headlights and came back onto the road and suddenly, I saw a stationary vehicle
parked in the middle of the road, loaded with wawa boards. At the time I saw
the stationary vehicle, the distance would be about 4 metres. I then applied my
brakes and swerved to the left and my vehicle ran into the stationary vehicle”<o:p></o:p>That
was at about midnight. As a result of the accident, the front part of the bus
was damaged and some of the passengers were injured. The plaintiff-corporation
later took action against the defendants-appellants, claiming “the sum of
¢19,819,449 of which ¢7,819,449 represents the value of the plaintiffs’ Setra
Bus No AM 9528, and ¢12,000,000 represents loss of the use of the bus for 100
days being damages for the negligent driving by the 1st defendant in the normal
course of his duties as the driver agent or servant of the 2nd defendant
resulting in the total loss of the plaintiffs’ said bus. The particulars of
negligence pleaded by the plaintiffs are:<o:p></o:p>“(a) Failing to provide advance
warning signs to indicate to other users of the road the presence of the
defendants’ vehicle.<o:p></o:p>(b) Failing to have proper lookout for
other users of the road.”<o:p></o:p>The
defendants denied that the 1st defendant was negligent and attributed the
accident to the negligence of the plaintiffs’ driver. They pleaded the
following particulars of negligence on the part of the plaintiffs’ driver:<o:p></o:p>“(a) Driving too fast in the
circumstances.<o:p></o:p>(b) Failing to keep a proper or any
lookout at all.<o:p></o:p>(c) Failing to so steer, manage or
control his vehicle as to avoid running into a stationary vehicle.<o:p></o:p>(d) Failing to keep to his side of the
road.”<o:p></o:p>The
court set down the following issues for trial:<o:p></o:p>“(a) Whether or not the 1st defendant
provided adequate warning guide when he parked the 2nd defendants’ vehicle on
the road;<o:p></o:p>(b) whether the 1st defendant was
convicted for failing to provide warning guide;<o:p></o:p>(c) whether or not the accident
occurred because of the 1st defendant’s negligence in failing to provide
warning guide;<o:p></o:p>(d) whether or not the plaintiff’s
driver was negligent.<o:p></o:p>(e) whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to his claim.”<o:p></o:p>After
hearing evidence and the addresses, the trial judge entered judgment in favour
of the plaintiffs. He awarded in their favour the total sum of ¢14,111,657.50
made up of ¢7,990,657.50 being the replacement value of the bus, and ¢6,205,000
as loss of use of the said bus for 6 months.<o:p></o:p>Being
dissatisfied with the judgment, the defendants appealed to this court on the
grounds that:<o:p></o:p>“(a) The said judgment is against the
weight of evidence adduced in that having regard to all the circumstances of
the case the plaintiffs-respondents rather than the defendants-appellants
should have been found guilty of negligence wholly or partially.<o:p></o:p>(b) The learned trial judge
misdirected himself on the principles for the award of damages.”<o:p></o:p>Arguing
</main>