EMELIA MORKOR COMMODORE QUAYE vs. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK [2002]DLCA6993

Date	2002-06-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 83/2000
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA6993

TWUMASI J.A

OMARI-SASU J.A

ANSAH J.A

[2002]DLCA6993
																																						<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" >EMELIA MORKOR COMMODORE QUAYE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<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">AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
APPELANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 83/2000 &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 27TH JUNE, 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <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">

TWUMASI J.A, OMARI-SASU J.A, ANSAH J.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>TWUMASI,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>In this appeal I intend to refer to the
respondent as the plaintiff and the appellant as the defendant as they
represented themselves at the trial High Court, Tema. The indorsement on the
writ of summons issued on behalf of the plaintiff was couched in the following
terms:— <o:p></o:p>(1) General and special damages for breach
of duty of care resulting in nervous shock and stroke.<o:p></o:p>(2) Interest on amount due to the plaintiff
after calculating special damages at the current bank rate from November 1991
to date of payment. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When it is read out of context, that is to
say, in dissociation with the statement of claim, the infelicity of the form in
which the plaint was couched would inescapably lead any student of the plaint
to conclude that it was in real sense an action in negligence and that what the
plaintiff ought to prove to succeed has been indorsed on the writ rather than
in the statement of claim. But, lo and behold, the indorsement is deceptive
because the material facts pleaded in the statement of claim show clearly that
what appeared on the indorsement as an action in negligence was in fact an
action for trespass to the person, that is to say, an action for damages for
unlawful arrest and detention. The pleadings are as follows:— <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(1) The plaintiff is a fish-monger
and lives at Tema. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(2) The defendants are bankers
registered under the relevant laws of Ghana and have their head office in
Accra.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;(3) Sometime in or about August 1991, the
defendants wilfully and intentionally brought two soldiers armed with AK 47
raffles to the plaintiff’s work place at Tema Fishing harbour and wrongfully
caused the plaintiff’s arrest on direction of defendants at gun point and the
plaintiff was detained by the said armed soldiers.<o:p></o:p>(4) The plaintiff avers that the
defendants’ said act terrified her and she was injured by the shock she
received. <o:p></o:p>(5) By the matters aforesaid, the
defendants broke their duty of care they owed to the plaintiff who suffered
loss and damage.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;The
plaintiff then pleaded particulars of her damage and loss. In their statement
of defence, the defendants denied the averments made by the plaintiff. They
pleaded in paragraph 3 of their statement of defence that sometime in July,
1990, the PNDC directed them to submit to the PNDC Laison Office a list of all
persons who were indebted to the defendants’ bank. They averred that they
compiled the list which included the plaintiff and submitted same to the Laison
Officer. They stoutly denied the plaintiff’s accusation that they caused or directed
the two armed soldiers to enter the workplace of the plaintiff, let alone
causing any harm or threat of harm or shock or injury to her. In a reply filed
on behalf of the plaintiff, the averment that the plaintiff owed the defendants
any debt was denied by paragraph 4 of the said reply. The issues that arose
from the pleadings were then set down for trial in a summons for directions.
T</main>