RICHARD PEPRAH vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE SUNYANI & 3 OTHERS [2020]DLSC9925

Date	2020-12-02
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEALNO. J4/03/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC9925

GBADEGBE JSC (PRESIDING)

AMEGATCHER JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS) JSC TORKORNOO (MRS) JSC

KULENDI JSC

BARIMA-AGYEKUM HINNEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

UMMU ZAKARI (MS) PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

Accra(delivery within the same day or the next)

[2020]DLSC9925
																																						<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" ><a name="_Hlk35510717">&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;</a>RICHARD PEPRAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DIRECTOR GENERAL, GHANA PRISONS SERVICE SUNYANI &amp; 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>CIVIL APPEALNO. J4/03/2020&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: 2ND DECEMBER, 2020<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GBADEGBE JSC (PRESIDING), AMEGATCHER JSC,
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS) JSC<o:p></o:p>TORKORNOO (MRS) JSC, KULENDI JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>GBADEGBE JSC:-&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>We have before us an appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. By that judgment, the decision of the
trial court on the question of negligence including the apportionment of the plaintiff‘s
contribution was upheld. The learned justices of the Court of Appeal however
interfered with the award of damages by reducing it from GH₵425,000.00 to GH₵ 150,000.00. Before us the plaintiff has launched
an attack on both the determination of negligence particularly that relating to
the apportionment of liability that was assessed at 15% against the plaintiff
against the defendants and also the reduction of damages awarded in his favor
at the trial court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before proceeding to consider
the appeal, we need turn our attention to the response filed by the parties to
a point of law raised by us under rule 6(8) regarding the question of vicarious
liability of the 1st 2nd and 4th defendants for the
negligence on which the claim herein was based.&nbsp;
Although both parties complied with the direction, we would like to
address certain points of law raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff
regarding our authority to raise points of law on an appeal. In his submission,
he contended that to be good, the question should be limited to jurisdiction.
In support thereof, reference was made to certain authorities, but we say at
once that the arguments made by him suffer from a misreading of the operative
words by which rule 6(8) is expressed. &nbsp;In
our view. the power conferred on us under the rule is an acknowledgement of the
authority in the court to raise points for parties to respond thereto is not
derived from the rules of Court but arises out of the requirement of the duty
to deliver decisions in accordance with the law for which reason at our
appointment we make an open declaration to that effect. The power of
determining appeals is derived both from the Constitution and the Courts Act, (Act
459) and accordingly what the rules provide is only to regulate how the court
may take a point of law not raised by the parties into account; it is limited
only to ensuring that the Court does not without affording the parties before
it the opportunity of responding thereto to base its decision on it. In fact,
from the formulation of the rule, there is no indication that the rule was&nbsp;&nbsp; conferring any new authority on the Court.
That the power of the Court under the rule is not limited to jurisdictional issues
as is evidenced by a collection of cases including Akufo Addo v Catheline [1992] 1 GLR, 337 and Tindana v Attorney-General [2011], 2 SCGLR, 743. Both cases dealt with
non-compliance with rules of procedure and or an order of the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Then, it w</main>