ABRAHAM GYAPPIAH (PLAINTIFF) vs. F. J. QUACKA & CO AND DAVID BAISEL (DEFENDANTS) [2009]DLHC7073

Date	2009-07-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CS 102/98
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC7073

HIS LORDSHIP GODWIN GABOR J.

EMMANUEL N. ARTHUR ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF

EKOW AMUA SEKYI ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT.

[2009]DLHC7073
																																						<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" >ABRAHAM GYAPPIAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<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>F. J. QUACKA &amp; CO AND DAVID BAISEL<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"><o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL
N. ARTHUR ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF <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">

EKOW AMUA SEKYI ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT.<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">

</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>The
Plaintiff is the owner of a Datson 160 J Saloon car numbered WRA 724. The first
Defendant is also the owner of Lada Estate No. AEB 2309 which was subsequently
renumbered as WR 4083 C. The second Defendant was at all material times the
driver of the Lada Estate car No. AER 2309. <o:p></o:p>On
12th September, 1997, the Plaintiff’s driver in charge of the Datson 160 J was
driving from Takoradi towards Sekondi. And second Defendant in charge of first
Defendant’s vehicle, a Lada Estate was driving in the opposite direction that
is to say from Sekondi towards Takoradi. At a sport near Government secretarial
School, second Defendant was alleged to have tried to overtake three vehicles
on the trot and in the process crashed into the Plaintiff’s car in his lane of
traffic. The Plaintiff’s car was said to be damaged beyond economic repair
hence the present action by the Plaintiff for:— <o:p></o:p>1)
Recovery of his Datson 160 J saloon car No. WRA 724 or in the alternative its
current value. <o:p></o:p>2)
Recovery of lose of use/earning, from 12/9/97 to date of judgment. <o:p></o:p>3)
Recovery of incidental expenses incurred. <o:p></o:p>At
the end of pleadings, the following issues were set down for trial:— <o:p></o:p>a)
Whether or not the 2nd Defendant was negligent. <o:p></o:p>b)
Whether or not the plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged beyond economic repair. <o:p></o:p>c)
Whether or not the 1st Defendant is the owner of vehicle No. AEB 2309 (WR 4083
C) <o:p></o:p>d)
Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claim. <o:p></o:p>On
the first issue as to whether the 2nd Defendant was negligent, Plaintiff’s
driver, John Fynn testified that on the day in question, the Defendant’s driver
i.e. the 2nd Defendant was overtaking three cars in succession and in the
process run into Plaintiff’s car in the lane of Plaintiff’s car. In other
words, 2nd Defendant left his lane and crashed into the Plaintiff’s car because
he was overtaking three other cars. This piece of evidence evidencing
negligence on the part of the 2nd Defendant was not challenged by way of
pleadings, evidence or cross-examination. From the record of proceedings, the
Defendants fought this case only on the issue of quantum of damages. <o:p></o:p>In
fact Counsel for the Defendants in his written address on behalf of the
defendants filed on 25/7/05 conceded the point in his very first paragraph as
follows:— <o:p></o:p>“As stated in the address of Counsel
for the Plaintiff, the issue of negligence was not challenged so I shall
proceed with the quantum of damages”. <o:p></o:p>In
the circumstances the plaintiff’s evidence </main>