i. Introduction

[1] On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs herein caused their lawyer to issue a writ of summons in the registry of this Court claiming against the Defendant Company the following judicial reliefs:-

1. Declaration that the deceased persons namely; Nyarko Attoh, Abraham Armah Attoh, Amartey Amarquaye and Nii Boye Lartey died from the inhalation of sulphuric acid fumes emitting from the Defendant’s defective septic tank and drowning.

2. Compensatory damages in the sum of GH¢100,000.00 for each deceased person.

3. Interest on the said sum at the prevailing bank rate from 11^th December, 2014.

4. Cost inclusive of solicitor’s fees at 15%.

[2] A 13 paragraph Statement of Claim accompanied the writ. Upon service of the process on the Defendant, Ms. Stephanie Amarteifio entered appearance on November 28, 2016 and filed a statement of defence on January 12, 2017. The Defendant denied substantially, all the allegations and claims of the Plaintiff. It was averred in paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the Statement of Defence in particular that:

“4. The Defendant admits paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim to the extent that an opening had to be created for further dislodgment but say that only the three persons engaged by the Defendant were engaged to enter the tank to do same.

7. The Defendant says further that in the process of dislodging the septic tank, the first deceased person jumped into the septic tank without using the proper equipment and apparel.

8. The Defendant avers that the second deceased person entered the septic tank to try and pull out the first deceased person but was pulled down into the tank by the first deceased person resulting in both their deaths and that the third deceased person died in the same fashion having failed to use the proper equipment and apparel.

9. The Defendant says that it was only after the tragedy that it was discovered that a fourth person had been brought in by the three persons whose services had been engaged.

11. The Defendant denies paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim and says that although they did not accept liability for the deaths of the deceased ,an amount of GH¢1, 250.00 was paid to the family of the deceased persons for the services which had been rendered by the deceased persons.

12. In further answer to paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendant says that a further amount of GH¢20, 000.00 was paid to the family of the deceased purely on humanitarian grounds and not as an acceptance of liability towards the funeral and burial expenses of the deceased persons.

[3] The Plaintiff filed a reply in answer to the statement of defence on January 18, 2017 to rebut the averments contained in the defence and in particular the averment that the Defendant engaged the services of only three of the deceased persons and not four. It was averred by way of a reply that the Defendant engaged a team led by their driver Abraham Armah Attoh and cannot therefore feign lack of knowledge the presence of all of the four persons at the site of dislodgment.

ii. The Issues

[4] At the close of the pleadings, both parties filed issues for determination by the Court. The Plaintiff formulated four issues and the Defendant also formulated one additional issue. All the issues were adopted by the Court and same were set down. The issues were as follows:-

Issues filed by the Plaintiff:

1. Whether or not the deceased persons died as a result of inhalation of sulphuric acid and drowning in the Defendant’s septic tank.

2. Whether or not the deceased persons were negligent.

3. Whether or not the Defendant owes the deceased persons a duty of care.

4. Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.

The Additional Issue filed by the Defendant on 25/1/2017 was;

1.  Whether or not the Defendant engaged the services of all four of the deceased persons?

iii. Brief facts of the case:

[5] According to the Plaintiffs who are administrators of the estate of the deceased persons the Defendant engaged the services of the four deceased persons namely: Nyarko Attoh, Abraham Nii Armah Attoh, Amartey Amarquaye and Nii Boye Lartey who were sanitation workers on the 11^th day of December 2014 to dislodge the Defendant’s septic tank. In the course of dislodging the tank (having transported the 1^st trip) the deceased discovered that there was a blockage in the septic tank which impeded further suction.

[6] One of the deceased persons Nyarko Attoh was made to enter the septic tank as their mode of operation to manually clear whatever was impeding the suction. After a few minutes with no word from Nyarko Attoh, the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th deceased persons entered the septic tank but each did not come out. They all died. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the deceased persons drowned in the process as a result of the inhalation of sulphuric acid fumes emitting from the tank.

[7] The Defendant denied that the septic tank was contaminated with sulphuric acid as residual waste from its operations. The Defendant further denied that the deceased persons died as a result of the inhalation of sulphuric acid fumes that emitted from the tank. According to the Defendant the deceased persons failed to wear the proper apparel and they also failed to use the proper now equipment.

iv. The Court’s Evaluation & Analysis of the Evidence: I proceed to determine the issues - Issues 1

[8] Giving evidence on oath in support of the claim for the Plaintiffs, Jordan Ayaa Attoh the Administrator of Abraham Nii Armah Attoh testified per the adopted witness statement that all the deceased persons were sanitation workers stationed at “Lavender Hill” Korle Gonno in Accra. He said the Defendant Company which is situated at Light Industrial Area Accra and deal in the “recycling of automotive battery and allied products” engaged them on 11th December 2014 together with Abraham Nii Armah Attoh as the liquid waste disposal truck driver to dislodge a tank at the Company’s premises. Nii Armah Attoh testified that in the process of dislodging the septic tank, after transporting the first trip the deceased discovered that there was a blockade which impeded the further suction and therefor Nyarko Attoh was made to enter the septic tank “as that was their mode of operation to manually clear whatever was impeding the suction”.

[9] According to him, when the other deceased persons did not hear from Nyarko Attoh within few minutes the rest entered the septic tank but none of them came out alive. It is the case of the Plaintiff that an autopsy carried out on the bodies of all of the deceased at the Korle Bu mortuary confirmed that the deceased persons died of inhalation of toxic sulphuric acid fumes and drowned.

[10] He tendered in support of his evidence, the following exhibits:

i) Exhibit A, A1, A2 and A3 – the report from the Department of Pathology, Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital;

ii) Exhibit B – Official Demand Letter for Compensation by Plaintiffs’ Solicitor;

iii) Exhibits C – Letter from Defendant’s Solicitors;

iv) Exhibits D – A copy of payment of GH¢ 20,000.00 on Funeral Expenses by Defendant to Plaintiffs and

v) Exhibit E – copy of Obituary of the Deceased persons.

[11] With regards the autopsy report the Plaintiffs subpoenaed Dr. Afua Owusua Darkwa Abrahams a lecturer at the University of Ghana from the department of pathology and also a consultant pathologist at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. She as the author of the Autopsy Reports tendered the reports and they were marked as Exhibits “F” to “F3” in the record. The Reports remarks/recommendations section states as follows:

“Sulphate was detected in the samples of blood submitted for analysis. It is a salt or ester of sulphuric acid. A basic compound was detected in the sample of the liver. In my opinion the cause of death is Acute pulmonary oedema and chemical pneumonitis due to exposure to sulphuric acid (via inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion), an unnatural cause”

[12] Under cross examination by the Defendant’s counsel, Dr. Abrahams stood by her report and again reiterated that the cause of death was inhalation of sulphuric acid and therefore the death was unnatural cause.

[13] In further cross-examination, this is what the Doctor said as captured in the proceedings of Thursday February 1, 2018.

“Q: You have also told this court that you prepared Exhibit F to F3?

A: Yes, my Lord.

Q: Your conclusion is that all the deceased persons died as a result of exposure to sulphuric acid through inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion/. Is that also correct?

A: Yes my Lord.

Q: I am suggesting to you that your conclusion that the deceased died from exposure, to sulphuric acid is not correct as there was no such sulphuric acid in the tank?

A: I disagree.

Q: I am putting it to you also that the septic tank only contained concentrated sewar gas, mixture of toxic and non-toxic gases produced and collected in sewerage systems which sanitation workers are exposed to in their line of work?

A: I disagree.

Q: I am further suggesting to you that sulphuric acid does not produce any fumes that can poison anyone through inhalation within a short space of time?

A: I disagree.

Q: It is a fact, is it not that sulphuric acid is corrosive?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Therefore, there should be severe burns and tissue damage when it comes into contact with the skin. Is that also correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am suggesting to you again, that your conclusion that the deceased died due to exposure to sulphuric acid through dermal contact is also not correct as there were no burns or external damage to the skin of the deceased persons when they extracted from the septic tank?

A: I cannot confirm that, my Lord.

Q: Now, take a look at Exhibit F, look at the alimentary system, on the 5^th heading. You told the court that you found very scanty amount of black semifluid particulate material. Is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Take a look also at Exhibit F3, also at alimentary system, the 5^th heading. You found also that, the stomach contained scanty amount of black semifluid?

A: That is correct.

Q: I am suggesting to you that when one is poisoned by sulphuric acid, you should find brown to black contents in the stomach and not scanty amount of black semifluid as found in your report?

A: I disagree”.

[14] In my respectful opinion the essence of cross-examination is to provide an opportunity for the cross-examiner to impeach the credibility of a witness where there are sufficient grounds to do so such as discredited evidence of previous testimony or where there is an available documentary or other evidence to impeach the qualification, experience expertise or position a witness has ascribed to himself or herself while testifying. In this case, respectfully, I am of the view that Counsel for the Defendant even though did a good job she failed to impeach the testimony of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses.

 [15] Now, how then did the Defendant contest Plaintiffs’ claim and to what extent did

Defendant establish on the balance of probabilities that the deceased persons were negligent and did not die from the inhalation of the sulphuric acid? The Defendant’s witness who testified was Mr. Eric Dela Dagadu. He denied that the Defendant’s septic tank was contaminated with sulphuric acid which was discharged as residual waste from its operations. He also denied that the deceased persons did not die as a result of inhalation of sulphuric acid fumes which emitted from the tank and said under cross – examination that the Defendant Company disagree with the Autopsy report.

[16] Mr. Dagadu further told the Court that the Company deals in plastic waste, electronic waste and used car batteries and also conceded under cross examination that the Defendant Company has several waste and that includes “acid waste, solid waste which comprise of papers, insulation rolls and septic waste”. Nevertheless he testified that the Company did not notify the deceased of the nature of work they carry out because according to him “there was no need because it was normal septic tank which work they confirm as sewerage workers”.

[17] The following evidence crucial and relevant to the issue under discussion was elicited during the cross-examination of the Defendant’s witness, Mr. Dela Dagadu on February 21, 2018.

“Q: What do you recycle?

A: Plastic waste, electronic waste and used car batteries

Q: I am interested in the recycling of the car batteries, what exactly you do with the car batteries.

A: We collect, cut open, removes the cells, package the cells in big bags and export the cells.

Q: What do you do with the acid in the batteries?

A: We collect them initially in stainless steel tanks awaiting neutralization or collection by an environmental specialist company called Zeal Environmental

Q: And you are aware that in the process some of the acid do sip out into your drains.

A: I disagree

Q: In fact some find their way into your underground chambers.

A: I disagree my lord

Q: In fact there have been occasions when neighbours have lodged complaints to your company

A: I disagree

Q: The AMA has had course to shut you down briefly.

A: Yes my lord, but that was for a different reason. On their arrival they requested if we have AMA operating permit and I showed them a copy and they demanded a copy of our susceptibility permit for which I told them I know nothing of that kind of thing but if it exist I will be glad to obtain it for the company. One Dr. Boateng then said if we do not have it then they have to close us down until we get it and it took us some few days to get it and we returned to work.

Q: You were closed down by the AMA after the death of these persons named in our claim

A: That is true….

Q: The deceased persons who were engaged to dislodge the septic tank, were they engaged by you personally

A: Not personally but under my instruction

Q: So you have no idea who had been engaged and how many of them

A: The person I instructed to engage the septic tank workers reported back to me

Q: Did you warn or notify the deceased persons of the nature of work carried out by Blancomet

A: No, there was no need because it was normal septic tank which work they confirm as sewerage workers

Q: You got to know that they had to enter the septic tank

A: Yes my lord but they offered to help for a fee. Our task for them was for them to dislodge the septic tank

Q: And at the time that they offered to go into the septic tank, did you notify them of your kind of waste

A: No, because this was human waste

Q: So, are we to understand that at Blancomet your human waste is sulphuric acid

A: No, Blancomet have several waste all separated of which we have acid waste, solid waste which comprise of papers, insulation rolls and septic waste.

Q: You say that the deceased person failed to use the proper equipment and apparel. Those that work for Blancomet recycling car batteries, do you provide them with proper equipment and apparel

A: Yes my lord

Q: And the apparel being what

A: They have protective clothing, respirators, special hand gloves, special boots depending on the chain of work where they are located

Q: I put it to you that you were negligent in not notifying the deceased persons of the nature of the material which is your waste and also to provide them with the same apparel

A: I disagree because we engage professionals in that line of business so we expect them to go along with their own equipment and apparel and it is not our duty to provide same

Q: As we speak today that septic tank in which they lost their lives has been decommissioned

A: Yes my lord”

[18] That sums up the evidence of the Defendant’s representative the Administrator of the Company in defence of the Plaintiffs’ case. Now given the fact that Defendant witness admits that the Company deals in acid waste as part of its operation which logically inferred, meant that it is not out of place for acid to seep into the septic tank, it would have served a better purpose for the case of the Defendant had a witness been called to eliminate from the mind of the Court that possibility through the production of relevant admissible evidence, but that was not done.

[19] Throughout the trial, Defendant did not find it necessary to call at least one person with the requisite knowledge of how the acid could not have gone into the septic tank and also to contest the autopsy findings. To my mind, this omission is fatal and it created a vacuum on the quality of evidence Defendant needed to adduce in defence of the Plaintiff’s claim. In my view therefore, the failure by the Defendant to call any such witness did not assist the Defendant in its defence. See OWUSU V. TABIRI [1987-88] 1 GLR 287. Given the nature of the defence set up by the Defendant, it had a duty to adduce evidence to prove that the deceased persons did not die as a result of the inhalation of sulphuric acid. Also, I am of the respectful view that the Defendant’s position is simplistic because the autopsy report did not specify that the deceased ‘fell into acid’ for which visible physical burns should have been noticed. According to the report the death was as a result of sulphuric acid inhalation. The two are different.

[20] After my examination of the evidence adduced at the close of the Plaintiff’s case, and taking into consideration that of the Defendant which was mainly bald denials without any cogent evidence scientifically or medically to rebut the autopsy report save Counsel’s questions, I have come to no other conclusion than that, Plaintiff’s testimony through its witnesses is credible and sufficiently discharges the onus on the Plaintiff based on the prescribed statutory standard and established judicial authorities. The summary of my findings is that Plaintiffs witnesses’ testimony on the issue has not been contradicted, impeached, nor controverted by the Defendant at the close of cross-examination. I therefore resolves the first issue in favour of the Plaintiffs. I now proceed to address the other issues and shall combine the Plaintiffs’ issues “2” and “3” and deal with them together.

[21] It is trite learning that the first step in proving negligence in tort is to establish a duty of care owed by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff, which duty of care arise from the nature of the relationship between them. By the authorities, a breach of the duty by the Defendant must first be established, and there must also be a damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the breach. See the case of EDWARD NASSER & CO LTD. V. McVROOM & ANOTHER [1996-97] SCGLR

[22] To say that a person is negligent in law is another way of saying that he owes a duty of care to another and that the duty has not been observed and/or not carried out. In other words, that duty of care is breached and the breach has resulted in damage to the person. See also the old celebrated case of DONOGHUE v STEVENSON (1932) AC 562, HEAVEN v PENDER (1883) 11 Q.B.D 503

[23] According Winfred & Jolowicz on Tort[1], negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The learned authors give the basic ingredients as:

“i) a legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such conduct of A as falls within the scope of the duty;

ii) Breach of that duty; and

iii) Consequential damage to B”

[24] In the case of HOME OFFICE v. DORSET YACHT [1970] AC 1004 Lord Reid postulated that the neighbour

test as espoused by Lord Atkin in DONOGHUE v STEVENSON SUPRA, was a statement of principle and it should be applied unless there was some reason for excluding it.

[25] Our apex Court in EDWARD NASSER & CO LTD. V. McVROOM & ANOTHER SUPRA, also articulated per Acquah JSC (as he then was) that;

“once the categories of negligence are not closed, although a relationship of proximity must exist before a duty of care can arise, the duty must depend on all of the circumstance of the case and that it must be considered whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty”.

[26] Another case which also deals with the issue of negligence and duty of care is the case of PARIS v STEPNEY BC [1951] AC 367 where a Local Authority employed the Plaintiff as a garage mechanic. In the course of his employment the Plaintiff lost the sight of one eye during the war. In order to loosen a stiff bolt he struck it with a hammer. As a result, a piece of metal flew off and (because he was not wearing goggles) struck him in his good eye, causing him to become totally blind. The House of Lords held:

“…that the probability of such an event was very small, but its consequences were very serious and that his employers knowing of his disability should have taken extra care to provide goggles for him. The more serious the possible damage, the greater the precautions that should be taken, it was further observed.” (Emphasis supplied)

[27] Applying all the principles above to the instant case it is my judgment that to determine in any given case whether the Defendant indeed owes any duty of care to the Plaintiff, the court has to consider the exact legal relationship between the parties. In this case the Defendant’s witness conceded that the Company engaged the services of the deceased persons to dislodge the Company’s septic tank for a fee, in my opinion the Defendant’s own evidence spells out the relationship between the deceased persons and the Defendant Company. It is therefore my finding that based on that relationship, the Defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased being the Plaintiff’s relations.

[28] As I have found the deceased persons died in the course of their work which cause of death is

medically established not to be natural, but through the inhalation of sulphuric acid which the evidence establish is one of the waste the Defendant recycle then the Defendant is in breach of the duty of care and liable in negligence. It goes without saying, therefore, that it was incumbent on the Defendant to protect the deceased persons it engaged. I am persuaded by the evidence on the record that the Defendant Company’s failure to take the necessary steps to protects the deceased persons in their work including not having the courtesy to notify them of the nature of their operation led to their untimely death and the loss to the Plaintiffs herein.

[29] 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.”

[30] While I hold that the Defendant Company were negligent based on the evidence; I have no hesitation however in concluding that the deceased persons were not negligent. To begin with, apart from the bald allegation provided by the Defendant that they were negligent because they did not wear the right apparel and failed to use the requisite equipment no evidence was led to establish the nature of the apparel they were to use and whether same was provided to them or whether the Defendant made sure that the deceased themselves had same. In any case I wonder how effective the wearing of the apparel would have saved the deceased from inhaling the sulphuric acid. Based on the evidence, I find that the deceased persons were not negligent.

[31] On the issue of duty of care of the Defendant I find it appropriate to rely on the case of

KORLEY v STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (1982-83) GLR 576. And the statement of law by the respected and learned jurist, Cecilia Koranteng-Addow J (as she then was) who after having critically analyzed the facts and the vexed issue of duty of care of an employer, postulated at p.580 of the Law Report as follows:-

“…… [T]he vital issue that has to be decided is whether the Plaintiff sustained his injuries as a result of the defendants’ negligence or his own negligence. An employer owes a duty to his workman to see that reasonable care is taken for the workman’s safety… The defendants were under a duty to see that a safe system of work and adequate materials and supervision were provided.” [Emphasis Mine).

[32] In the course of the trial one thorny issue that engaged the parties is in regards to the additional issue filed by the Defendant that is whether Defendant engaged the services of all four of the deceased persons? Ms. Amarteifio in her written legal submission submitted that the only conclusion based on the evidence as to why the fourth person was discovered an hour after the incident is because he had not been engaged by the Defendant to dislodge the septic tank and that is why the Company did not know of his where about. That, if indeed the four persons had been engaged, those at the scene who helped to retrieve the deceased persons would have ensured that all the four would have been pulled out immediately.

[33] Mr. Quartey in response says the contract was an oral one and therefore there was no document to confirm how many people were engaged and also the fees charged was fixed and not rationed to the number of persons. He also submitted that Mr. Dagadu admitted he did not engage the deceased but someone else but that someone according to Mr. Quartey was not called to be examined to establish whether three or four people were engaged. According to him therefore, the Defendant ought to “take their victims as they find them”.

[34] I have thoroughly examined the evidence of Mr. Dagadu and I am of the respectful view that the resolution of that issue can be found in his own testimony per the adopted witness statement filed. Let us hear from Mr. Dagadu in his own words: “at the police station, it was discovered by other work mates of the deceased persons that a fourth person who usually worked with the group was not responding to his phone calls and they stated that they suspected he might have accompanied the driver after the first dislodgment to the site”. [Emphasis Mine].

[35] In my respectful view, the testimony informs me that it was not out of place and it should not have been a surprise to the Defendant Company that there was a fourth person. They knew that a fourth person usually accompanied the three persons they claim to have engaged. In any case, as pointed out by Mr. Quartey there is no evidence as to how many persons were engaged by the Defendant. Also, interestingly I have looked at the statement of defence filed and also reviewed the evidence of Mr. Dagadu to the Court, and I have not found the names of the three persons among the four the Company says they engaged and who is the fourth person who was not engaged. And so the question is which of the four individuals was not engaged by the Defendant? Based on all of the evidence I am persuaded that the Defendant Company has only raised that issue as an afterthought. I therefore hold that all the four deceased persons were engaged by the Defendants.

v. Conclusion & Disposition:

Assessment of damages:

[36] Under common law, the remedy that may be available to the victim of a tort like negligence is an award of damages. The award ought to put the victim in the same position as he was prior to the accident. Explaining the basis for the award, Lord Scoutt is credited with that statement of law that says:

““The general principle … is that the tribunal [court] should award the injured party such a sum money as will put him in the same position as he of would have been if he had not sustained the injuries.”[3]

[37] A host of respectable judicial authorities illustrate the rule that in awarding damages in such cases several factors ought to be taken into account. These include pain and suffering that is physical and psychological pain suffered; loss of amenities of life; disfigurement and disability; constant nursing; the inevitability of living as a handicapped person for life. The list is not exhaustive but depends on the circumstance of each case. See: OPOKU-DARKWA v AKYEA (1974) 1 GLR 272. The list may not all be applicable to the facts of this case because we are dealing with victims who are deceased.

[38] In this case learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in his submission to the Court has relied on Section 16 (1) (3) (4) (5) of the Civil Liability Act, 1970 and Section 18 (10 (a) (b) and urged on the Court to grant the Plaintiff’s reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons. Mr. Quartey submitted that “the deceased persons were family members and in gainful employment and had dependents. Most of these children are not been educated anymore, it is an unfortunate situation created by the carelessness of the Defendant not forgetting the mental distress their death has caused for these family members”. Counsel also quoted and relied on the case of AMAKOM SAWMILL & CO v. MANSAH AND ANOTHER [1963] 1 GLR 368. Counsel also relied on the case of PRAH & ANOTHER v. OKAI [1966] GLR 560 to submit that “gratuitous funeral donation to the family of the deceased ought not be taken into account in assessing damages”.

[39] I need to put it on record that I have carefully considered the submission of Counsel. In my view however, every case ought to be considered on its peculiar facts and issues, therefore I have to consider the instant case based on the evidence put before me. The difficulty is that no evidence was tendered by the Plaintiff as proof of employment of the deceased persons and how much they were earning prior to their untimely deaths except the engagement by the Defendant which it seems was temporal based on the evidence. Also, apart from the ages of the deceased there is no evidence of their family situations and also no evidence of their dependents in regards to spouses and children. With respect to learned Counsel, I have to say this even though not with relish, the Plaintiffs ought to know that the basic rule of the game in Court is “evidence”. Whilst sympathizing with their loss I can only make orders based on the evidence before me and the law. Every claim made ought to be proved on the balance of probabilities.

[40] Having considered the evidence in its entirety, I hold that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their case to the satisfaction of the court on the balance of probabilities. Based on the evidence I hereby grant the first relief of the Plaintiffs. In regards to the compensatory damages, based on the law and the ages of the deceased and the circumstances of their death, I shall award each deceased person the sum of GH¢25, 000. I shall however, dismiss the claim of interest on the amount awarded as claimed as there is no legal basis for it. This was not an outstanding debt which was due as payable. The Plaintiffs Cost shall be assessed at GH¢10,000

[41] I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my admiration for the industry put in by both Counsel and the civil manner the trial was conducted. Both Counsel deserve my commendation.