IDDRISU vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2001]DLHC1195

Date	2001-01-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC1195

ANINAKWA J

IBRAHIM MAHAMA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-LANDLORD.

S K ATADZI FOR THE DEFENDANT-REPUBLIC.

[2001]DLHC1195
																																						<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">IDDRISU<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">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 608<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: 26 JANUARY 2001<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>IBRAHIM
MAHAMA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-LANDLORD.<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">

S K
ATADZI FOR THE DEFENDANT-REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Aninakwa J. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff is the owner of the compound H/No N47/3, Yendi. In 1972 the plaintiff
let this house to the State for use as residential apartments for policemen. On
9 January 1994 at about 1 pm there was a fire outbreak in the house in
consequence of which a substantial part of the house was destroyed. The State
did not reinstate or repair the house. Neither did the State give any money to
the plaintiff to enable him to do so. In these circumstances, the plaintiff
issued this writ of summons against the Attorney-General as representing the
State and indorsed it with the claim thus:<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">“The
plaintiff claims against the defendant general and special damages and the
replacement cost of the plaintiff’s house No N47/3, Yendi which was destroyed
by fire on or about 9 January 1994 as a result of the negligence of one Sammy
Amokpi, a servant or agent of the Republic of Ghana.”<o:p></o:p>The
indorsement shows that a claim was being made against the State on the grounds
of negligence. This being so, the specific acts which are alleged to constitute
the negligence must be pleaded and subsequently proved. The part of the
statement of claim dealing with the negligence is in paragraph (3) where it was
stated:<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">“Amokpi
was using an electrical appliance, a water heater, for the wrong purpose of
boiling yams. And while the heater was on, he was not in the room. The water
boiled over resulting in the heater catching fire.”<o:p></o:p>No
other particulars of the negligence were given. The Amokpi mentioned was one of
the policemen staying in the house with his family. It was established at the
trial that at the material time Amokpi was not in the house but was on duty at
the police barrier on the Yendi-Tatale road.<o:p></o:p>At
the trial the plaintiff led evidence to the effect that whilst the house was
burning, the wife of Amokpi who had all along been sitting on the veranda
outside the room where the fire was said to have started told some inmates of
the house that her thirteen year old daughter, Vida Amokpi, was using a water
heater to cook yams in their room and the fire started. The act of negligence
was thus centered on the allegation that: “a water heater was used for the
wrong purpose of boiling yams.” This then was the fact which ought to be
established to found negligence. In this case, as always, the onus rests on the
plaintiff to prove the negligence he alleges. The inability of the defendant to
establish some other fault he alleges to be on the part of the plaintiff or to
establish anything at all does not in any way diminish the onus on the
plaintiff to prove the negligence he alleges. Negligence is a conclusion of
mixed fact and law.<o:p></o:p>