EVELYN BOATENG vs. BISHOP ACKAM-NEWMAN, REGISTERED TRUSTEES MERCEDONIA PRAYER CENTRE AND STATE INSURANCE CO. LTD [2010]DLHC4181

EVELYN BOATENG vs. BISHOP ACKAM-NEWMAN, REGISTERED TRUSTEES MERCEDONIA PRAYER CE... [2010]DLHC4181

Date	2010-05-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C142/99
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4181

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

NII ODARTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF

YAW OPPONG FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS

[2010]DLHC4181
																																						<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" >EVELYN BOATENG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BISHOP ACKAM-NEWMAN,
REGISTERED TRUSTEES MERCEDONIA PRAYER CENTRE AND STATE INSURANCE CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FINANCIAL DIVISION ONE), 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">

SUIT NO. C142/99&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: 28TH MAY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NII
ODARTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE 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">

YAW
OPPONG FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Sometime
in the year, 1999 the Plaintiff herein caused her lawyer to issue a writ of
summons claiming against the defendants:-<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ₵20,000,000.00
being the total value for the replacement of Nissan Urvan bus No. ER 667 C
which is a total write-off.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Loss
of use of the said vehicle at ₵1,500,000.00 each
month for the period for which the vehicle was wrecked.<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the total amount being claimed
at the current bank lending rate from the date of accident up to the date of
final payment.<o:p></o:p>d)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;General damages and costs.<o:p></o:p>With
the leave of the court relief (a) as endorsed on the writ was subsequently
amended to read as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“Recovery of the replacement value of
Nissan Urvan bus<o:p></o:p>No. ER 667 C which is a total
write-off.”<o:p></o:p>Significantly,
the 1st and 2nd defendants had on the 4th March, 1999 equally counterclaimed
against the Plaintiff as follows:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Repair of the 2nd defendant’s vehicle and
or in the alternative the replacement value of the vehicle.<o:p></o:p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Loss of use at ₵100,000.
a day from the date of the accident till the final determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p>3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the total amount claimed at the
current bank rate from the date of the accident till the final determination of
the suit.<o:p></o:p>At
the close of the pleadings, theIssues which were adopted for determination by
the court as contained in the Summons for Directions filed on 16/03/99 were:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the deceased driver in charge of Nissan Urvan bus with
registration number GR 8077 A belonging to the 2nd defendant was an agent/servant
of the 1st and 2nd defendants at the time of the accident.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of
the agent of the 1st and 2nd defendants.<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the 1st and 2nd defendants could be held vicariously
liable for the acts and negligence of their agent.<o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the 1st and 2nd defendants should be held liable for the
loss incurred by the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her claim.<o:p></o:p>It
is instructive that as late as the 2nd February, 2009 lawyer for the 1st and
2nd defendants, Mr Yaw Oppong did file a notice of Additional Issues when
Summons for Directions had already been taken by my respected sister Agnes
Dordzie, J on the 19th day of May, 1999.&nbsp;
However, this court on the 15thFebruary, 2009 did admit those Additional
Issues 1 and 2 to form part of the Issues for determination.Additional Issue 3
was, however, struck out as withdrawn.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Additional Issues 1 and 2 were:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the accident occurred as a
result of the negligence of the driver of Plaintiff’s vehicle.<o:p></o:p>