Pilot Law

Brief court decisions on civil wrongs

 

By Safi Jimba

General Principle of Liability (XVIII)
Appeal allowed. The case of Haco Ltd v. P.O Udeh (1959) N.R.N.L.R. 61, was not referred to in the proceedings.
RULE IN SMITH v. SELWYN
John Mark v. Sampson Toe
(1934) 2 W.A.C.A. 170
APPEAL CT. (Accra) – KINGDON C.J., YATES AG. CJ AND GRAHAM PAUL J.
“The point at issue if whether a plaintiff is debarred from bringing an action claiming damages for assault and battery by the fact that the defendant has already been charged criminally in respect of the same assault, convicted summarily and adjudged by the court under the Criminal Code, s. 74(2), to make compensation to the person injured, although that person does not wish such compensation to be adjudged to be made in the criminal prosecution and has since refused to accept the money, which has been paid into court by the defendant in order that he may avoid imprisonment in default.
The question turns upon the true interpretation to be put upon section 75 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows: ‘Where any person who is injured by any offence punishable under this code, or under any other statute, receives compensation for such injury under the order of the court, or where the offender, having been ordered to make such compensation, suffers imprisonment for non-payment, the receipt of such compensation or the undergoing of such imprisonment, as the case may be, shall be a bar to any action for the same injury; but, except as aforesaid, nothing in this code shall bar the action of any person in respect of any injury sustained by him or his property.
To be continued next week

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button