EMMANUEL ROCKSON vs. ILIOS SHIPPING COMPANY S.A. AND WILTEX LTD. [2010]DLSC2533

Date	2010-02-10
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2007
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2533

AKUFFO JSC (PRESIDING)

DR. DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

EBOW QUASHIE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

JOHN MERCER ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.

[2010]DLSC2533
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL ROCKSON<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ILIOS SHIPPING COMPANY S.A. AND
WILTEX LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2007&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
10TH FEBRUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>EBOW
QUASHIE ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<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">

JOHN
MERCER ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS.<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">

AKUFFO
JSC (PRESIDING), DR. DATE-BAH JSC, ANSAH JSC, ANIN YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE
JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DR. DATE-BAH, JSC:<o:p></o:p>On
the 4th of July 2003, the plaintiff mariner filed a writ at the High
Court, Sekondi, endorsed with the following claim:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Order
that the Cyprus affiliate F T PAW, settles the Plaintiff’s claim per the
Collective Insurance Policy of International Transport Workers Federation
(I.T.W.F.)<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
35%
Interest on the sum payable from 1st November 2001 to date of&nbsp; payment.”<o:p></o:p>This
Writ was accompanied by a Statement of Claim containing the facts set out
below.&nbsp; Since the defendants have not
filed a defence, but have rather contested the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of
law, this case has come to us on the basis only of the plaintiff’s averments.&nbsp; The facts tell a sad story, but the sadness
of the story cannot legitimately be allowed to affect the correct legal
analysis of the case before us.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff mariner worked aboard the M/V Dynamic, a Greek registered vessel
owned by the first defendant and sailing under a Cyprus flag.&nbsp; The second defendant is the correspondent
agent of the first defendant in Ghana and carries on the business of marine
surveyors and the verification of information relating to the staff welfare of
its clients.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
or about 24th September 1999, the plaintiff, while on duty aboard
the M/V Dynamic, then anchored in Beirut, sustained injuries whilst dismantling
a piston in the engine room of the ship under the supervision of a
Superintendent Engineer.&nbsp; The plaintiff
contends that the first defendant failed or neglected to provide a safe system
of employment for the Plaintiff on board the ship.&nbsp; As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff
could no longer continue with his work on the vessel.&nbsp; He was treated initially at a hospital in
Beirut, but was later repatriated to Ghana, where he continued his treatment at
Effia Nkwanta Hospital.&nbsp; The first
defendant sent the plaintiff one thousand US dollars to help defray the cost of
his medical treatment.&nbsp; His doctor at
Effia Nkwanta, after examining him and treating him, wrote a report which
assessed the plaintiff’s disability as an oiler merchant seaman at 65 per
cent.&nbsp; When this report was submitted to
the first defendant, it referred the plaintiff’s claim to the second defendant for
processing as a Protection and Indemnity (or P &amp; I) claim.&nbsp; When, after an extended series of
correspondence between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff
received no redress or compensation for his injuries, he caused the writ
already described to be issued.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
the issue of the writ, the plaintiff applied for leave, under&nbsp; Order 11, rule 1(g) and 4 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules 1954, LN140A to serve the writ on the first defendant outside
the jurisdiction.&nbsp; His Lordship Dotse J.,
as he then was, granted the leave on 28th July 2003, for the writ to
be served on the first defendant in Greece.&nbsp;
The defendants entered a conditional appearance and then applied to
strike out the plaintiff’s action under order 12 rule 24 and order 25 rules 2,3
and 4.&nbsp; The defendants’ argument was that
the plaintiff was estopped per rem
judicatam from relitigating this matter since the plaintiff had instituted
a similar action at the High Court, Sekondi, which had been dismissed.&nbsp; The defendants maintained also that the writ
of summons in the present case and the order authorising</main>