WILLIAM ASAAM & OR. vs. GHANA RAILWAY CORP [2004]DLCA6772

Date	2004-02-05
Suit No.	CA. 27/2003
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6772

LARTEY JA

ANSAH JA

ADDO JA

[2004]DLCA6772
																																						<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" >WILLIAM
ASAAM &amp; OR.<o:p></o:p>(PLTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA
RAILWAY CORP.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<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">

<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">CA.
27/2003&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 5TH FEBRUARY, 2004<o:p></o:p>

LARTEY JA, ANSAH JA, ADDO JA<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>ANSAH,
JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against a decision of the High Court, Sekondi, and dated 20
February 1998. <o:p></o:p>As
per their writ of summons, the plaintiffs claimed jointly and severally against
the 1st and 2nd defendants: <o:p></o:p>1.
"An order for reinstatement of the 1st plaintiff as the Financial
Controller of the 1st defendant Corporation. <o:p></o:p>2.
An order for the payment arrears of salaries and allowances from the 24th
January 1991 to date of judgment or retirement. <o:p></o:p>3.
General damages for 'mental stress and shock' and alternatively. <o:p></o:p>The
enforcement of the award made by the Commissioner for Human Rights and
Administrative Justice dated the 15th day of June 1995" <o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial, the court found the evidence of the plaintiffs and their
witnesses 'overwhelming and incontroverted' and held that they were entitled to
the claims against the defendants 'jointly and severally.' Save relief 1 above
that was dismissed, the court awarded on relief 2, (a), the sum of wassic
dismissed, the court awarded on relief 2, (a) the sum of ¢2,496,030.00 at the
present bank rate from 22/9/93 to 20/2/98. <o:p></o:p>On
relief (iv), the court made the following awards: <o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
The sum of ¢2,496,030.00 at the present
bank rate from 22/9/93 to 20/2/98. <o:p></o:p>On
relief (iv), the court made the following awards: <o:p></o:p>(a)
The sum of ¢10,000,000.00 to 1st plaintiff for 'pain and suffering and loss of
amenities of life.' <o:p></o:p>(b)
The sum of ¢14,000,000.00 being general damage to 2nd plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>(c)
The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs had their costs assessed at the 1st and 2nd
plaintiffs had their costs assessed at ¢1,200,000.00 and ¢1,200,000.00 and
¢1,300,000.00 respectively.<o:p></o:p>It
is against this judgment that this appeal had been brought to this court the
following grounds: <o:p></o:p>(a)
"The trial judge's order for payment of interest on salaries when the
plaintiff’s did not make a claim for interest was erroneous. <o:p></o:p>(b)
The trial judge erred when he made an order against the 1st and 2nd Defendants
jointly and severally when that was not the claim of the 1st and 2nd
plaintiffs. <o:p></o:p>(c)
The trial judge erred when he made an order of General damages for pain and
suffering when the plaintiff did not make a claim for such. <o:p></o:p>(d)
The trial judge erred when he applied the provisions of the 1992 Constitution
to a matter that occurred in January 1991. <o:p></o:p>(e)
The trial judge erred when he held that the 1st defendants wer</main>