ANDREW TETTEH H/NO. 2 2/29, 4TH STREET, SEKONDI vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR FISHERIES [2015]DLCA8280

ANDREW TETTEH H/NO. 2 2/29, 4TH STREET, SEKONDI vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ATTORN... [2015]DLCA8280

Date	2015-05-13
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/14/2012
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8280

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

S. K. GYAN J.A.

G. S. SUURBAAREH J.A.

MISS PAT KLINOGO CSA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

MR. E. K. N. ARTHUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8280
																																						<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" >ANDREW TETTEH H/NO. 2 2/29, 4TH
STREET, SEKONDI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR FISHERIES<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.&nbsp; HI/14/2012&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: 13TH MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MISS PAT KLINOGO, CSA FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR. E. K. N. ARTHUR
FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A.
(PRESIDING), S. K. GYAN J.A., G. S. SUURBAAREH 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 23rd
day of August 2010.&nbsp; The said court
granted the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff/respondent with costs of
GH¢5,000.00 against the defendants/appellants.&nbsp;
In this appeal, the defendants/appellants would be referred to as the
appellant and the plaintiff/respondent as the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
facts of this appeal are that the respondent’s wooden fishing vessel CRF 186
was returning from fishing with PW1 Annan Tetteh, a fitter and PW3 Philip
Tetteh, the Captain on board the vessel.&nbsp;
Sub Lieutenant King Adu Kow Nkrumah DW1 who was in charge of Naval
Patrol Boat GNS David Hanson was on patrol when he saw CRF 1 86 and other boats
and he ordered them to stop for inspection.&nbsp;
CRF 186 obeyed the command but another boat No. 148 run away.&nbsp; GNS David Hanson gave a hot chase to No. 148
but could not arrest it.&nbsp; GNS David
Hanson returned to where CRF 186 had stopped.&nbsp;
There was an incident between the wooden vessel CRF 186 and the metal
Naval boat which resulted into serious damage to the wooden vessel.&nbsp; The incident was viewed by PW2 Kofi Panin
Yena while ashore.&nbsp; After the incident,
GNS David Hanson gave a chase to the CRF 186 to the Harbour where Naval
personnel under the instructions of DW1 towed the boat to the Naval base where
it stayed until it sunk.&nbsp; After CRF 186
sunk, the plaintiff as owner caused a writ of summons to be issued against the
defendants claiming as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“… general and special damages for the negligence
of the Western Naval Command patrol boat which led to serious damage to the
plaintiff’s boat No. CRF 186 which eventually sunk.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp; A
declaration that the arrest and detention of the boat was unlawful”.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants entered appearance and caused a statement of defence to be filed
while the respondent filed a reply thereto.&nbsp;
The following issues were listed and taken during the application for
directions:-<o:p></o:p>“a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the crew men of the 2nd
Defendant were negligent in crashing into plaintiff’s boat No. CRF 186.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the plaintiff’s workmen
refused to stop when ordered by the crew men of the 2nd defendant to
do so.<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the plaintiff’s workmen
were committing a crime on the high seas when apprehended by the crew men of 2nd
defendant.<o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the arrest and subsequent
detention of the plaintiff’s boat was lawful.<o:p></o:p>e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the generators and high
powered lights allegedly found on plaintiff’s boat were used for criminal
purposes.<o:p></o:p>f)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the arrest of plaintiff’s
boat occurred within the statutory limits of the sea.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;g)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the defendants are damnable in damages.<o:p></o:p>During
the trial, the respondent called four witnesses while the appellant also called
four witnesses.&</main>