IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION)
ACCRA - A.D 2018
IBRAHIM AYOMIKU AZEEZ - (Plaintiff)
ROYAL RICHESTER HOTEL - (Defendant)
DATE: 25 TH APRIL, 2018
SUIT NO: BMISC 1002/2014
JUDGES: KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
MR. THEOPHILUS KPORVIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF
NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE DEFENDANT
[A] The Action
 Per an Amended Writ of Summons sealed in this registry on April 21, 2016 the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant:-
a) The sum of Gh¢ 300,000.00 (three hundred thousand ghana cedis) being general damages for injuries suffered as a result of the fire outbreak in defendant’s hotel.
b) An Order that Defendant pays for the future medical bills of Plaintiff with respect to injuries suffered as a result of the fire outbreak.
c) General damages for emotional stress suffered as a result of the fire outbreak at Defendant’s hotel.
d) Special damages in the sum of £49,620.61 or the cedi equivalent at the prevailing commercial bank lending rate and same being;
(i) Monthly income of £2,693.35 for six (6) months in the sum of £16,161.10
(ii) The sum of £2,460.51 or the cedi equivalent being hospital bills incurred during Plaintiff’s treatment in London
(iii) The sum of £2,000.00 or equivalent being cost of travel tickets from Accra to London for medical treatment
(iv) The sum of £19,000.00 or cedi equivalent being total cost of items missing in Plaintiff’s room during the fire outbreak;
(v) The sum of £5,000 or the cedi equivalent being cost of hiring of vehicles to transport Plaintiff and children to school in London due to Plaintiff’s inability to drive as a result of the injuries sustained during the fire outbreak.
e) Cost including the Lawyer’s fees.
 A statement of claim accompanied the writ filed. The claim of the Plaintiff was met with a statement of defence by the Defendant in which the Plaintiff’s claim was vehemently denied. The Defendant substantially denied all the allegations and claims of the Plaintiff. It was averred in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the Amended Statement of Defence in particular that:
“5. The Defendant further says that the occupants of the rooms including the Plaintiff were offered a ladder to scale down safely but the Plaintiff decided to jump instead. In fact his other colleagues in the other rooms who used the ladder did not sustain any injuries.
7. The fire was from an air condition installed within the premises where the defendant lodged at the hotel. The air conditioners and other electrical appliance at the hotel were serviced and maintained and in good state of repair and condition.
8. The fire was the result of surge in electricity supplied by the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) to the hotel. Power surges and fluctuations are frequent in the area where the hotel is located”.
 The Defendant further denied that after the fire the Plaintiff lost any personal items. It averred that “all his personal effects were handed over to him by the Defendant when he returned from the hospital. There is a procedure for reporting missing items of occupants in the hotel but the Plaintiff never accessed same”. Further, the Defendant averred that the Plaintiff never paid an amount of US$9000 as bills to the Defendant. According to the Defendant the Plaintiff paid US$2,500 as his total bills for five (5) days of his stay at the hotel but continued to lodge at the hotel after the fire from October 18th to October 22nd, 2013 which bill amounted to us$1,800 but the Plaintiff did not settle same.
[C] The Issues
 At the close of the pleadings, both parties filed issues for determination by the Court. The Plaintiff formulated eight issues and the Defendant also formulated four additional issues. All the issues were adopted by the Court on December 1, 2016 and same were set down. The Plaintiffs’ issues were as follows:-
a) Whether or not the Plaintiff is a businessman who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom?
b) Whether or not the Plaintiff room was engulfed in smoke as a result of the fire outbreak, thereby causing his vision to be blurred?
c) Whether or not the fire emanated from only the exit point in the hotel?
d) Whether or not the Plaintiff saw some members of staff of the Defendant’s hotel standing outside the hotel which said persons shouted to the Plaintiff to jump from the balcony to the ground?
e) Whether or not the Plaintiff did jump from the balcony of his room to the ground and thereby sustained injuries to his left leg, knee, waist and intermittent pains in his spine?
f) Whether or not the staff of the Defendant’s hotel took the Plaintiff to the Holy Trinity Hospital and subsequently referred to Korle Bu Teaching Hospital after the occurrence of his injuries
g) Whether or not the Plaintiff was offered a ladder to scale down from his room after the occurrence of the fire in the Defendant’s building?
h) Whether or not the fire which caused the Plaintiff to jump from his balcony to the ground, and thereby sustain injuries occurred by reason of the Defendant’s negligence?
 The Defendant’s additional issues filed are as follows:
Whether or not the Plaintiff continued to stay in the hotel after the fire outbreak on his trip to Kumasi?
Whether or not the defendant had at all material times kept proper maintenance of its facilities?
Whether or not the fire outbreak was as a result of power surge in electricity supplied by the Electricity of Ghana?
Whether or not the Plaintiff reported of his lost items after the fire outbreak
[B] The Non Appearance of Defendant & Counsel
 Even though the Defendant hotel filed a defence and later a witness statement, from the case management stage and when trial date was set, the Defendant Hotel and its Lawyer were absent. From the record of service, the Defendant’s lawyer of record is Mr. Kwabena Boye Adjekumhene of Akufo Addo, Prempeh & Co Solicitors located at 67 Kojo Thompson Road, Adabraka, Accra. On November 20, 2017 Counsel informed the Court that his relationship with the client has broken down and therefore he does not wish to represent them. The Court ordered Counsel to file the appropriate application for the Court’s consideration and serve the client. The Court then ordered the Plaintiff to serve the Defendant with all the processes filed directly and the Defendant was duly served.
 The Court further notes that Counsel failed to file any application as directed by the Court. The Court further notes that even though the Defendant filed a witness statement in January 2017, despite several adjournments Counsel failed to attend Court for the pretrial and therefore the pretrial proceeded after which the matter was set down for trial. Again, the Court adjourned the matter to enable learned Counsel to attend to confirm his availability but he failed to attend despite the service of a Hearing Notice. Both the Defendant Company and Counsel were served with further Hearing Notices but they neglected to attend.
 Pursuant to the provisions of Order 36 Rule 2 (a) of CI 47, I proceeded to hear the evidence of the Plaintiff. I also note that further hearing notices were served on both Counsel and the Defendant Company after the trial started and the Defendant was given the opportunity to attend and to cross-examine the Plaintiff but it failed to attend and neither did counsel. I have gone to this extent to put on record how the Defendant and Counsel handled this matter to demonstrate that to ensure fairness the Defendant was given the opportunity to contest the Plaintiff’s claim but in clear violation of the rules both Counsel and the Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s orders.
 The Plaintiff meanwhile complied with the orders made and filed the witness statement and the Checklist for the mandatory Case Management Conference. The Case Management started on March 29, 2017 but was not completed as same was adjourned to enable Defendant’s Counsel to attend. The matter was adjourned to April 6, 2017. Once again it was adjourned to a date in June before finally it was completed on July 6, 2017 but still without the participation of the Defendant and/or Counsel even though they had notice and dates of October 20th, 23rd and 26th October, 2017 were set for trial. The Court then ordered that Counsel should be served with a hearing notice and the Court notes, and the matter was adjourned to October 20, 2017 for trial. Pursuant to the provisions of Order 36 Rule 2 (a) of CI 47, I proceeded to hear the evidence of the Plaintiff and struck off the Statement of Defence and the witness statement filed and which were on the docket.
 I note that the reason why the Court opted to serve the Defendant and Counsel with hearing notices even though they failed to comply with the orders and attend Court was that, on the authorities, where a Court has taken a decision without due regard to a party who was absent at trial because he was unaware of the hearing date, that decision is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court. See: BARCLAYS BANK v. GHANA CABLE CO [1998-99] SCGLR 1 and the earlier case of VASQUEZ v. QUARSHIE  GLR 62.
 On the other hand, the law is that where the party is sufficiently made aware of the hearing date and/or offered the opportunity to appear in court to answer/defend or as in the present case where the Defendant was duly served but it failed/refused to attend Court, the Court is entitled to proceed to determine the case on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial, notwithstanding the absence of the party, in this case the Defendant. See Order 36 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, (2004, CI 47) and also IN RE: WEST COAST DYING IND. LTD; ADAMS v TANDOH [1987-88] 2 GLR 561.
[C] Background & Evidence
 The Plaintiff’s case consisted of his testimony in court and the documentary evidence he submitted in support of the claim, marked in the record as Exhibits “A” to “N”. The Plaintiff, Mr. Ibrahim Ayomikun Azeez is a British citizen who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. He gave evidence on oath in support of his claim and testified that in or about October 11, 2013 he lodged at the Defendant’s hotel and was allocated a room on the second floor of the two (2) storey building for a period of 14 days. According to the Plaintiff during the early hours of October 14, 2013 he woke up and realized that his room was engulfed with smoke that caused him to suffer an asthma attack. The Plaintiff testified that he later got to know that “the smoke which engulfed my room was caused by a fire outbreak on the first floor of the Defendant’s hotel”.
 Mr. Azeez further testified that due to the intensity of the fire, smoke to engulfed his room causing his vision to be blurred but he needed to escape to save his life. The Plaintiff says the smoke in the hallway to the room was extremely intense and therefore his ability to exit to safety was also impaired and therefore in the midst of the confusion and fearing for his life, he was compelled to jump from the balcony of the room to the ground. According to Mr. Azeez as a result of the jump, “the injuries I sustained affected my left leg, knee, waist and caused me intermittent sharp pains in my spine”. An undated photograph of a leg in a cast was tendered as Exhibit “E” at trial.
 The Plaintiff testified as to how the Defendant Hotel staff took him to the Holy Trinity Hospital first, after which he was transferred to the Korle Bu teaching hospital for further observation. The referral letter from the Holy Trinity Hospital to Korle Bu was tendered as Exhibit “F”. According to the Plaintiff his condition was getting worse and therefore he was advised to seek medical treatment abroad “to prevent further damage to my health”. According to Mr. Ayomiku based on the advice, he travelled to the UK for further treatment on 16th November 2013.
 The Plaintiff further testified that upon his arrival in the UK he undertook an X-ray at the University College Hospital in London and it revealed that he suffered “trauma multiple fracture” and he needed intensive care treatment. According to the Plaintiff due to the severity of his condition he paid “huge medical expenses to doctors”. He also said he purchased a “Zimmer Frame and a walking stick” as ambulatory aids. The Plaintiff tendered some receipts as Exhibits “H” and “J” series.
 The Plaintiff further told the Court that he continued to attend treatment as an out-patient in Ghana and the UK and was informed by doctors that “due to the nature of my injuries, I would require treatment for the rest of my life and possibly a surgery”. The Plaintiff tendered copies of letters from BMI Hendon Hospital in London and a video CD as Exhibit “K”.
 It is also the case of the Plaintiff that as a result of the accident he is unable to engage in his “vibrant supply business” and as a result of his hospitalization he lost his line of business and had to start all over again “resulting in loss of business running into thousands of pounds”. Per the witness statement, he says that “the nature of my injuries is such that I am limited in what I presently can do”. He also says his company in the UK became dormant and he received a letter from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs regarding the dormancy and he risk having his company blacklisted or being shut down. A copy of the said letter was tendered as Exhibit “M”.
 According to the Plaintiff his enquiries with the Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS) disclosed that the fire was caused by a split air conditioner at the Hotel. The Plaintiff said his enquiries revealed that “the Defendant did not adhere to a proper maintenance culture and did not have fire extinguishers readily available to fight the fire outbreak in the hotel”. A copy of the letter from the GNFS was tendered as Exhibit “N”. The Plaintiff further testified to how unsafe the hotel is and how it has only one escape route etc.
 Finally, the Plaintiff testified as per the adopted witness statement that when he returned from the hospital he could not find his personal effects which included an Apple Mac Book laptop, Ipad 3, a Breitling wrist watch, my designer clothes, shoes and bags” the value of which is GH¢104, 500. He also said that “I was hospitalized for six (6) months and was unable to work and drive my car in London. I was compelled to rent vehicles for my business trips including taking my children to school and other functions. I am currently scared to lodge in a hotel anytime I travel and I have since been suffering from emotional stress”. He also said that he now carries emotional scars as a result of his injuries and continues to incur medical expenses as a direct effect of the injuries sustained due to the fire outbreak at the Defendant’s hotel. As a result of all of the above the Plaintiff prays the Court to grant the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons.
[D] The Court’s Analysis & Opinion:
 Notwithstanding the absence of the Defendant at the trial, I have subjected the evidence of the Plaintiff to the prescribed standard of proof as provided under sections 10–14 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). It is trite law that for every case there is a burden of proof to be discharged and the party who bears the burden will be determined by the nature and circumstances of the case; see sections 10 – 17 of our Evidence Decree 1976 (NRCD 323). There is no paucity of case law interpreting these provisions. In ABABIO v AKWASI 111 [1994-95] Ghana Bar Report, Part 11, 74 the court stated that a party whose pleadings raise an issue essential to the success of the case assumes the burden of proving such issue. See also RE ASHALLEY BOTWE LANDS: ADJETEY AGBOSU & ORS v KOTEY & ORS [2003-04] SCGLR 420 which further elucidate the burden of proof as statutorily provided.
 Even though in accordance with the rules I struck out the Statement of Defence filed, I have nevertheless examined same in this judgment with the view to establishing whether or not even with the Defendant’s absence at the trial, any jurisdictional or other crucial legal defence has been raised by the Defendant’s pleading. I note that I found part very interesting and worthy of consideration but, the Defendant denied itself the opportunity of coming to Court to defend the action and to support the averments with evidence. As stated above, the Defendant did not appear at the trial in spite of numerous Hearing Notices served on Counsel. The Defendant also failed to attend Court cross-examine the 2nd Plaintiff who testified for himself and the 1st Plaintiff.
 It is trite that pleadings constitute allegations/assertions and the basis of each party’s case as opposed to evidence, therefore when the assertions are not substantiated the Court has no business making findings upon them. As was observed by Charles Crabbe JSC in HAMMOND v ODOI [1982-83] 2 GLR 1215 at 1235
“Pleadings do not only define the issues between the parties for the final decision of the court at the trial; they manifest and exert their importance throughout the whole process of the litigation. They contain the particulars of the allegations of which further and better particulars may be requested or ordered, which help still further to narrow the issues or reveal more clearly what case each party is making…
Pleadings are the nucleus around which the case - the whole case — revolves. Their very nature and character thus demonstrate their importance in actions, as for the benefit of the court as well as for the parties. A trial judge can only consider the evidence of the parties in the light of their pleadings. The pleadings form the basis of the respective case of each of the contestants…”.
In the absence of any testimony to substantiate the assertions made by the Defendant in its defence and the witness statement filed but not adopted as evidence at trial they remained unproven assertions.
 Now, does the fact that the Defendant failed to attend Court to contest the suit mean that the Plaintiff’s case is fait accompli and therefore the Court should grant the Plaintiff reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons? To my mind the answer is an emphatic NO. I shall therefore critically assess the Plaintiff’s evidence heard at trial.
[E] Findings of Facts
 From the available evidence I make the following findings of fact:
1. that on October 11, 2013 the Plaintiff lodged in at the Defendant hotel as a guest and was allocated a room on the second floor of the building;
2. that, there was a fire outbreak at the hotel on October 14, 2013 and the Plaintiff felt compelled to egress via the balcony of his room to the ground floor;
3. that the Plaintiff was injured as a result of the mode of egress and received medical care in both Ghana and the UK where he is a citizen.
 I have examined the many issues set down by Plaintiff’s Counsel and the additional issues filed for determination by the Court and I am of the respectful opinion that they are all peripheral issues and to some extent, respectfully, irrelevant. To my mind, the issues which are very central to the determination of the controversy between the parties herein is whether or not the Defendant Hotel’s negligence led to the fire outbreak and whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claim as endorsed on the Writ of Summons.
 From Plaintiff’s evidence, I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has established on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant’s negligence led to the fire outbreak. Negligence in law, has been defined to mean:
“…the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.”
 I do hold in the instant case that the Plaintiff’s allegation of negligence against the Defendant is anchored in his pleading and testimony that his enquiries after the fire outbreak revealed that it was caused by a split air conditioner at the hotel. He also told the Court that his enquiries revealed that the Defendant did not adhere to proper maintenance culture and did not have fire extinguishers available to fight the fire outbreak. However, the Plaintiff’s testimony was not supported by any material or cogent evidence. They were bare assertions. The only document tendered at trial regarding the fire which one can say came from a professional source was Exhibit “N”, being the letter from the GNFS. Curiously, that exhibit undermines the Plaintiff’s allegations. To leave no one in doubt I hereby produce in extenso that exhibit. It states:
“1. We write to confirm that there was a fire outbreak on Monday 14th October, 2013 at the Royal Richester Hotel, East Legon near the Police Station.
2. A radio message was received by Headquarters Sub Station from Fire Master Control at 0745 hours reporting a fire outbreak at the Royal Richester Hotel. At 0746 hours, Multi-Purpose Tender No. FS 545 with a crew of seven (7) was dispatched to the fire scene. On arrival at 0758 it was observed that fire had involved a split air condition on the first floor of a two (2) storey building but the fire was out.
3. Mr. Ernest Asare, a worker at the hotel said he observed smoke emanating from the dining hall of the first floor of the hotel at about 0725 hours. He entered and saw the air conditioner on fire. With the assistance of his co-workers they used (2) 6kg dry powder and two (2) 3kg CO2 extinguishers to extinguish the fire.
4. Information gathered and subsequent investigation conducted indicated that Mr. Azeez A. Ibrahim who was a guest at the hotel had to jump from the balcony of the first floor due to the intensity of smoke at the staircase and sustained some injuries.
5. Submitted for your information and necessary action
Signed – DCFO Dr. Albert Brown Gaisie
 Clearly the official GNFS report tendered by the Plaintiff himself debunks his evidence that there were no fire extinguishers at the time of the fire outbreak. The report speaks to the fact that when the GNFS firefighters arrived the fire had been extinguished by the staff of the hotel using fire extinguishers. Also, save for the report confirming where the fire broke, there is no evidence that the fire occurred because the hotel failed to maintain its facilities as alleged by the Plaintiff. From the evidence, I hold that there is no foundational basis for this Court to conclude that the Defendant was negligent. The fact that there was a fire outbreak does not in any way, shape or form mean that the Defendant was negligent. I find myself unable to accede to such contention. I shall therefore dismiss the Defendant’s claim of negligence against the Defendant.
 As stated above, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the jump from the balcony to the ground because of the fire outbreak. But does the Plaintiff as a result foentitled to the claims he has made in this case? Again, I assess the Plaintiff’s claim in the light of the evidence. Mr. Azeez tendered some medical documents to back his claim that he was severely injured and same has affected/will continue to affect him, going forward. The obvious starting point therefore is the medical evidence.
[F] Medical Evidence
 I note that I earlier mentioned some of the medical evidence in passing, I will now address some of the evidence in more detail.
Dr. Kennedy Addo
 Dr. Kennedy Addo of the Holy Trinity Medical Centre, a Chief Medical Officer wrote Exhibit “F”, and stated that Mr. Azeez was seen on 15th October 2013. He wrote, inter-alia, that he is alleged to have sustained a fall from a height (1st floor of a building) and was referred from Ghana-Canada Specialty Hospital with a painful deformed left ankle joint. X-ray taken confirmed multiple fractures of the left calcaneus bone with lateral displacement. He wrote that on account of the severity of the fracture displacement, he was further referred to the Accident and Emergency Unit of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital for thorough investigation where upon fiber glass cast was applied.
Mr. Aditya Prinia
 Exhibit “H2” from the University College London Hospital NHS was signed by Mr. Aditya Prinja, SpR Trauma and Orthopedics. It is dated December 10, 2013. He wrote that the Plaintiff “was examined out of Plaster today. He has a significantly swollen left heel. His foot is tender throughout. Radiographs were taken today. These show a significantly communicated calcaneal fracture. It was difficult to ascertain the full extent of these injuries on plain x-ray, thus we are organizing for him to have an urgent CT scan. He was reviewed by Mr. Oddy as well in the clinic today. The significance of the injury has been explained to Mr. Ibrahim. In the meantime we have placed him in an Aircast boot and advised him to touch weight bear only. We will see him in two weeks time with results of the CT scan and will advise him further”.
 Exhibits “H3 to H6” are all appointment notices for the Plaintiff from the University College London Hospitals NHS to see Consultant Mr. M Oddy and also for MRI, CT & X-ray at the UCH Macmillan Cancer Centre, Huntley Street, London together with some receipts.
 Exhibits H7 and H8 are also appointment notices and general information.
 Exhibit “K” series include a confidential report issued after the CT Scan. A consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, Mr. Vipin Asopa wrote on 24 August, 2016 that “MRI scan reports a cyst in the navicular and degenerative changes in the sub-talar joint. He wrote that he has discussed the various options but the Plaintiff is keen to avoid surgery at present. By another letter dated 4 August 2016 to Dr. Asif Hirani, the Plaintiff’s family Doctor Mr. Asopa again wrote that the Plaintiff “sought a second opinion at UCH, London, where he underwent CT scan. He was advised he may require further surgery in the future. He currently has difficulty weight bearing and aching after short periods of walking. There is occasional night pain. He has an antalgic gait and a wide left heel base with pes planus. There is some tibiotalar dorsiflexion/plantar flexion and subtalar stiffness. Neurovascular status normal. Radiographs show an old calcaneal fracture involving the anterior subtalar joint and a pes planus deformity. I have requested an MRI scan and will see him with the results”. The Plaintiff underwent the MRC scan and has tendered a copy of the video of the image as an exhibit.
 As stated above a review of the medical reports confirm the Plaintiff sought medical attention for treatment of his injury following the jump. But to my mind they do not support the very serious assertions made that the injuries have been debilitating to the extent that he cannot do anything for himself at all. None of the reports say that he will no longer be able to work at all as he contended. Therefore, with due deference to the Plaintiff, one gets the impression that he is leveraging his adversity to enrich himself and has thus made fantastical and hyperbolic claims which are very difficult to prove or which he did not bother to prove. For instance, it is not disputed that the Plaintiff is a British Citizen and it is also a notorious fact that because the British health care system is publicly funded for its citizens, not all medical bills are paid out of pocket. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff has attached UK National Health Service receipts stamped as “paid” and contends that he is entitled to be refunded by the Defendant without proving that these expenses were not publicly funded.
 The Plaintiff tendered no proof of renting vehicles for his daily use and for transport of his children in London because he could not drive except what he told the court in his testimony and monetary figures quoted as “confetti” for the Court to adopt. Curiously, even though he testified per the adopted witness statement that his inability to work as a result of his injury has affected his business and same is on the verge of collapse, he nevertheless testified that he hired a car and a driver for his business and transport of his children. So which is which? The Plaintiff ought to know that the basic rule of the game in Court is “evidence”. Every claim made ought to be proved on the balance of probabilities. While I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff is entitled to some compensation for the injuries sustained because jumping from a balcony of a hotel as a result of a fire outbreak is not a normal occurrence for a guest at a hotel, same can also not be leveraged to enrich oneself as the facts of this case presents.
 I note that among the claims made by the Plaintiff is a refund of a Business Class airline ticket in the name of “LINDSAY/MAUD”, Exhibit “G” and one in the name of the Plaintiff. The question is who is Lindsay/Maud? No evidence is provided by the Plaintiff. Also, the Plaintiff says he lost personal items valued at over GH¢100, 000 and listed some items he claims he lost. Again no evidence was provided to support the assertions even though the Defendant denied that the Plaintiff lost any personal effects. I am of the opinion that it is not good enough for the Plaintiff to just make the claims without any further evidence to support same.
 Based on the above analysis, I shall dismiss the Plaintiff relief for the payment of future medical bills, general damages for stress suffered as a result of the fire outbreak and the relief relating to claim for monthly income in the sum of £16, 161.10, the sum of £19,000 of items lost in the hotel and the of £5,000 as cost of renting vehicles to transport Plaintiff and children to school in London.
 As indicated above, the only evidence before the Court shows that the Plaintiff jumped to save his life during the fire outbreak as a result I am of the view that he is entitled to some compensation from the Defendant. To that extent, even though I have expressed misgiving as to whether the Plaintiff paid out of pocket as a British citizen the amount of £2, 460.51 being the payment for the Ultra Sound, Crushes & Cast, MRI, CT and X ray, I shall nevertheless order that the Defendant refunds same to the Plaintiff, being cognizant of the fact that patients seeking more expeditious health care are sometimes compelled to pay out of pocket. Also, since there is no evidence of who Lindsay/Maud is, I shall order that the Defendant pays the Plaintiff half of the airline ticket claimed being £1,000 instead of the £2,000 claimed. In terms of compensation I shall award the Plaintiff the sum of GH¢25, 000.00.
 On the issue of costs, the Court takes cognizance of the fact that the case has seen many adjournments because the Defendant used the legal process to frustrate the Plaintiff by seeking many adjournments which were granted but still failed to attend Court. The Defendant must therefore be made to compensate the Plaintiff for his legitimate and reasonable expenses incurred in prosecuting the action.
 Further, taking into consideration the conduct of the Defendant and the numerous hearing notices issued and relying on the authority of the Court of Appeal case of GATCO CHEMPHARAM v. PHARMADEX (Ghana) LIMITED [1999-2000] 2 GLR @262 I shall award the Plaintiffs cost GH¢15,000. 00.