 By her Writ of Summons issued out at the Registry of the High Court, Accra on the 16th January, 2015, and the amended statement of claim filed on the 15th April, 2015, the claim of the Plaintiff against the Defendant is for: 
(1) General Damages of GH&#8373;500,000.00 for causing the death of Isaac Nuamah, her son under the below Heads. (a) Compensation for two surviving children (b) Compensation for surviving mother  (c) Compensation for father (d) Compensation for two siblings (e) Compensation for pain and suffering (f) Loss of expectation of life (g) Loss of prospective dependency (h) Funeral/Hospital expenses (i) Loss of earnings 
Per the records, the defendant per Counsel entered conditional appearance on the 11th February, 2015, and filed Defence on the 18th March, 2015, and further with an amended statement of Defence on the 16th June, 2016.    At the close of pleadings and at the level of application for Directions the issues set down for trial are; 
 
2 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
(a) Whether or not the defendant was negligent in this matter (b) Whether or not the negligence of the defendant caused the death of the late ISAAC NUAMAH (c) Whether or not the late ISAAC NUAMAH was contributorily negligent (d) Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa Luquitor is applicable in this case (e) Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to her claim; 
On the 16th June, 2015, the defendant also filed the below additional issues:- 
(j) Whether or not the plaintiff has capacity to persue this case against the defendant  (ii) Any other issues arising out of the pleadings.  
The case of the plaintiff as told to the court on the 19th June, 2015, is that the accident victim and now deceased late Isaac Nuamah was her biological son and was born on the 25th November, 1981.   To support her claim she tendered in evidence of the late Isaac Nuamah’s Birth Certificate which was accepted in evidence as Exhibit ‘A’.   That on the 13th December, 2014, she went to the room of the late Isaac Nuamah, her son but he was not there.   That she therefore called his phone number and somebody picked it to inform her that late Isaac was knocked down by a vehicle the previous night at the Weija Block Factory Junction.  That she rushed to the said junction and was told that the person who knocked him down, who happened to be the defendant decided to carry him to Hospital and in the process the deceased fell from the bucket of the Pickup carrying him to the Hospital, which at the time was being driven by the defendant.   That there was nobody with him in the bucket at the time.    That the Defendant did not notice this and drove all the way to the Hospital only to detect that the deceased victim was even not in the bucket of his Pickup.  That in the course of transporting him to the Hospital, the late Isaac Nuamah, her son fell down and was later conveyed to the Police Hospital, Accra.  That she followed up to the said Police Hospital and identified the deceased as her son, who had been put in the mortuary.   That at the said Police Hospital she was given the Police Corpse Identification Card, the Coroners Form and the Death Certificate (which were already signed) and same were tendered and accepted in evidence as Exhibits B, B1 and B2 respectively.   It is 
 
3 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
further her case that, the Weija District Police gave her a Police Accident Report which she also tendered and same was accepted as Exhibit ‘C’. 
It is further the case of the Plaintiff that, before the late Isaac Nuamah met his untimely death, he was a professional welder haven’t completed his Technical Education at Kumasi Technical Institute (KTI) and was given Certificates to that effect.   That he had also earlier on completed his J.S.S.   The said Junior Secondary School Certificate went in as Exhibit ‘D’ whilst his KTI Testimonials went in as Exhibit ‘E’. 
Further that at the time late Isaac Nuamah died, he was not married but he had two children, namely Joseph Nuamah aged 11 years and Promise Nuamah also aged 4 years, and that they both attend school.   That the late Isaac Nuamah was responsible for the Educational and medical bills of his two children which responsibilities have shifted to her as the surviving mother of her late son, and so she takes care of them.    
It is further the case of the plaintiff that, she met the defendant after the funeral of her son who promised her a support in taking care of the children Nuamah left behind but never fulfilled that promise after one and half (1.5) years.    That the Defendant did not attend the funeral of her late son but sent a funeral donation of GH&#8373;800.00 in addition to GH&#8373;4,000.00 given to her earlier. 
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, she made some expenses in the performance of her son’s funeral some of which were receipted.  These receipts were tendered and accepted in evidence as Exhibits F, F1, F2, F3 and F4.   Witness also tendered in evidence a copy of the Insurance Policy of the Defendant Vehicle which was also accepted as Exhibit ‘G’.   That after his death, the working tools of late Isaac Nuamah have been brought to her house and that the defendant has denied the fact that late Isaac Nuamah was her son.   
PW1, Kofi Mensah Manzie, who for some reasons gave evidence on the 18th June, 2015 and earlier than the Plaintiff testified to the effect that, the late Isaac Nuamah was a grandson to him and a biological son to the Plaintiff, who happens to be his biological daughter.     
 
4 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
It is his case that, the said Isaac Nuamah is dead and died out of a motor accident he had which happened to be the defendant’s vehicle.  That during the funeral of late Isaac Nuamah, the defendant’s church members brought him and the plaintiff GH&#8373;4,000.00 to support them and additional funeral donation of GH&#8373;800.00 and that Isaac Nuamah died as a result of injuries he had or sustained when he was knocked down by the defendant car.    
PW2, Theodore Opoku Asare No. 35826 and a General Corporal of the Ghana Police Service, Stationed at New Weija, Accra, testified to the effect that, on the 13th December, 2013, the plaintiff came to the Police Station and identified herself as the mother of one Isaac Nuamah a deceased person who was conveyed to the Hospital by him.   That on the same 13th December, 2013 one Sergeant Edmund Teye Martey of the Dansoman MTTU brought in the defendant together with extract of the occurrence prepared by the Dansoman MTTU as well as Nissan Pickup, with registration number, GX 2238-12 and reported that, the defendant who was driving the said pickup knocked down the victim, the late Isaac Nuamah.   That the defendant was detained and the vehicle impounded.   That on the 16th December, 2013, the defendant was arraigned before the Motor Court, Accra and charged for careless and inconsiderate driving and negligently causing harm.    The said charge sheet was tendered and accepted in evidence as Exhibit ‘H’.    
The extract of the complaint and a copy of the Cautioned Statement obtained from the defendant were also tendered in evidence and accepted as Exhibits ‘J’ and ‘K’ respectively.   That he also took measurement of the scene of the accident in the presence of the defendant (then accused) and the Plaintiff.    That a Duplicate Docket has since be prepared and forwarded to the Attorney General’s Department.   Further that, Exhibits B1 and C in this case are the Coroners Form and Police Accident Report that the Plaintiff requested for from the Police. 
On the 3rd December, 2015, Benjamin Essah, the defendant herein told the court that, on the 12th December, 2013, he was coming from Bogoso in the Western region of the Ghana and that after crossing the traffic light at SSC, Weija Junction in Accra, his car knocked down a certain man at about 8:30 p.m. who was later identified as the late Isaac Nuamah.  That when he got 
 
5 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
to the traffic light, there was a green light and he drove ahead and to his surprise he did not know where the deceased gentleman came from and suddenly crossed him and so was knocked down.   That with the help of a certain man, he picked and put the victim into the bucket of the Pickup he was driving.    That he did so because the cabin of the Pickup was full and he could not waste time offloading all the goods therein.    Continuing his evidence on 19th January, 2016, Defendant said he saw the plaintiff jumped out of the bucket of his pickup so he parked.  That he saw the deceased on the road and some other cars had driven over him; and that with the help of some other people they blocked the view of the cars to stop further damaged and according to him what he meant by that was simply that, they put a lorry tyre in front of the body to stop other cars from running over him.     That he, at this time called one Police Inspector Korsah of the Wejia Police Station to inform him of what had happened to him.   That what happened was a purely accident case because prior to the incident, he did not see the victim.    That he immediately, put the victim back into the bucket of his car because the cabin was full of goods with the view to rushing him to the Hospital but the victim finally died.    That when he died as a result of the incident, he did a lot for the victim’s family including the following; 
(a) Mortuary fee (b) Coffin (c) Burial expenses and carried (d) The funeral expenses 
That the accident occurred in between the zebrah crossing and the traffic light and therefore did not occur in the zebrah crossing.     That the plaintiff told him the deceased victim had two children.   Further that since the incident, he has not been prosecuted by the Criminal Motor Court; and that he has been reporting to the Police, Weija Division or Command. 
Now, and as by Law established, the burden of proof in a Civil Case lies on the party who makes a particular claim to adduce credible evidence to support his or her case.     
 
6 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
Infact Section 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) states that, the standard of proof in all Civil cases is one on “a balance of probabilities” which was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of ADWUBENG VRS DOMFEH [1996-97] SCGLR 660 (a) page 662 as follows and I quote; 
 “By sections 11 (4) and 12 of the Evidence Act 1975 [NRCD 323] the standard of proof    in all civil cases is proof by preponderance of probabilities no exceptions were made”. 
Further, in the case of FOSUA AND ADU-POKU VRS ADU-POKU [2009] SCGLR 310, their Lordships observed as follows; “Section 11(4) of the Evidence Act puts the obligation of producing evidence on a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence, a reasonably mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its nonexistence”. 
Again, in the recent case of ACKAH VRS PERGAH TRANSPORT LTD AND OTHERS [2010] SCGLR 728 @ 736 the Supreme Court had the following to say on the Law relating to the burden of proof and I quote “It is a basic principle of the Law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail…   This is a required of the Law on evidence under sections 10 (1) and (2) and 11 (1) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 [NRCD 323]”. 
It is therefore my view that, the yardstick for determining in whose favour the scale of justice tilts, is dependant on the quality of evidence adduced by that person or party.    It is on record that on the 16th June, 2015, the defendant filed two additional issues one of which is “whether or not the plaintiff has capacity to persue this case against the defendant”.    The issue of capacity in every civil suit is very fundamental to the very existence of the suit for which reason I would like to handle it first.      
Apart from the fact that, the issue of capacity was raised in the additional issues filed on the 16th June, 2015, it was not raised anywhere in the course of the trial.   Infact, the only time the 
 
7 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
defendant per Counsel came very close to capacity was when the plaintiff was under crossexamination on the 14th July, 2015, and the below was what transpired between the plaintiff and the Defence’s Counsel.  
 (Q)   I put it to you that, you do not have the legal mandate to bring this action because   you are not the Administratrix of the Estate of the deceased? 
 (A)   Please, I have the right to institute this action because I am his surviving mother. 
It is my view that, the Defendant per Counsel was expected to file a formal application on notice on the issue of capacity to give the plaintiff the opportunity to respond adequately to that application in accordance with Law.    The Defendant did not avail himself the benefit of this procedure and merely mentioning it at the application for Directions level is not enough to say that the plaintiff has no capacity to institute the instant action. 
Order 66 Rule 13 Sub Rules (a) (b) (c) and (d) of PNDCL 111 states categorically the order of priority of a grant of Letters of Administration (L/A) where a person dies intestate after the enactment of the said Law.    Infact Sub Rule (c) of the above mentioned Order 66 Rule 13 categorized surviving parents as a group of people entitled to Letters of Administration in situations as in the instant one.    The reference in Law is that, once the plaintiff in the instant suit is entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration (L/A) in respect of the Estate of the deceased, she has the right and capacity to initiate any proceedings or suit in respect of her son’s Estate including the instant one.    Exhibit ‘A’ the Birth Certificate also confirms that plaintiff is the mother of the deceased.    Issue (a) as filed by the plaintiff is “whether or not the defendant was negligent in this matter”.    From her evidence to the Court on the 19th June, 2015, the plaintiff only heard of the death of her son the next morning after the incident.    She was therefore not at the scene of incident at the time it happened.     However, the defendant saw it all.    He gave the time of the accident at 8:30 pm on the 12th December, 2013, and the scene was at the SSC Weija junction in the city of Accra.    He also said he did not see the victim and that the exact spot was between the zebrah crossing and the traffic light.    The defendant never evidenced to the court that he had a defective brake system or defective head 
 
8 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
lights, so that if he never saw late Isaac Nuamah before the incident then the probable reason could be that, he was driving at a speed not acceptable by Law in the city of Accra on that fateful day just before the incident.    The position of the Law is that the defendant owes a duty of care to all road users including the deceased Isaac Nuamah but failed to exercise that duty of care hence the accident.    The defendant again said in his evidence to the Court that, when he knocked down his victim, he became unconscious.  This was also captured in his cautioned Statement to the Police, Exhibit ‘K’ herein on his arrest after the incident.    
It is my view that, in the position that he found himself, the defendant should or ought to have known reasonably that a person who fell unconscious as a result of a vehicular knock down could regain consciousness at any time and would therefore need the attention of another person to prevent him from acting in a way that could endanger his life. 
In the instant suit, it is the defendant’s own evidence that, when he knocked down Late Isaac Nuamah and he became unconscious, he put him in the bucket of his moving pick up without any person to attend to him.     
Prudently, what the defendant should have done to save the life of his victim was to put him in a more enclosed and protected car like a taxi cab and made sure he was driven safely to the nearest health facility.    If he failed to do this with the excuse that the cabin of his Pickup car was full at the time with other things, then I could safely say that he was negligent both before and after the accident. 
On the issue of “whether or not the negligent of the defendant caused the death of the late Isaac Nuamah”, I am of the view that the evidence on record will provide the answer.   The defendant per his own evidence did not dispute the fact that his victims, the late Isaac Nuamah died as a result of this accident.    Exhibit ‘B’ the death certificate tendered by the Plaintiff shows that the said Isaac Nuamah is dead.   The brief facts as contained in Exhibit ‘C’ dated 3rd November, 2014, and tendered by plaintiff on the 19th June, 2015, to support her case has it that, late Isaac Nuamah fell from the bucket of the Defendant’s Pick up when he was been rushed to the Hospital for treatment; and was allegedly ran over by another vehicle and died on the spot.    In 
 
9 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
the same Exhibit ‘C’ the Medical Officer’s Report gave the cause of death as Traumatic shock.  The evidence before this Court has it that, the deceased victim was knocked down by the defendant who in attempt to save his life put him in the bucket of his Pickup unattended to for which reasons he fell therefrom and was allegedly ran over by another vehicle.    The traumatic shock the deceased Isaac Nuamah had and died was as a result of the accident he had and it was the defendant who caused the accident.      
I am therefore of the view that it was the negligence of the defendant that caused the death of the late Isaac Nuamah.     
In paragraph 13 of the defendant’s amended statement of defence filed on the 16th June, 2015, the defendant averred that, the plaintiff contributed to his own death and gave particulars of contributory negligence.   By Law the defendant is legally obliged to give credible evidence to sustain his claim.   To the surprise of the Court however, the defendant never adduced any evidence in open court to support that claim when he mounted the witness box.   The implication legally is that, he has no evidence on his claim of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Isaac Nuamah.   
The next issue is “whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa Loquitor is applicable in this case”.   In the instant suit, it is my view that, it is the defendant who owes it a duty to explain why he decided to carry an unconscious man in the open bucket of his Pick up to the Hospital unattended to after he had knocked him down.   I have mentioned in the early part of this judgment that, what the defendant should have done prudently to save the life of his victim immediately after the accident was to have found an alternative means of transport to convey the late Isaac Nuamah to the nearest health facility. 
I therefore find his explanation to the effect that, he put him in the bucket of his pick up because the cabin at time was full most unacceptable, dehumanizing and reckless and it is my view that, the action by the defendant fell in all-four with the doctrine of  res ipsa Loquitor rule of evidence. 
 
10 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
Issue (e) as raised by the plaintiff is “Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to her claim”?   The evidence on record has it that the late Isaac Nuamah left behind two children aged (9) nine and (4) four, his mother (the plaintiff) herein, his father, Mr. Afoakwa, two other siblings and that he was a welder and aged 32 years at the time of his death.    The evidence also has it that in his life time he took care of his two children, cared for his two parents and also assisted his mother to take care of his two other siblings; because he worked and earned income.   The evidence also has it that his financial help and assistance has ceased since his death and the plaintiff and the other dependents have to contend with lose of the financial support from the deceased.      
It is in this vain that, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to her claim for damages for negligently causing the death of the deceased.   After evaluating the evidence on record, the Court made the following findings of facts; 
(a) That on the day of this incident the defendant herein was negligent both before and after he had knocked down his victim, late Isaac Nuamah.  (b) It is also a fact that, the defendant negligence caused the death of the above mentioned deceased and not the alleged ran over by another vehicle as the defendant claims.   
(c) The Court also finds as a fact that the victim, the late Isaac Nuamah fell out of the bucket of the defendant’s moving Pick up because there was no attendant to take care of him whilst in his unconscious state.  (d) It is a fact from the evidence or record that, the victim did not jump out of the bucket of the defendant’s moving Pick up as the defendant wants the court to believe. 
I believe and hold the view that, the Plaintiff has been able to persuade me, based of course on the evidence on record that, her side of the case is more probable for which reason I enter judgment for the Plaintiffs on the reliefs (a) to (j) as stated in the amended statement of claim filed on the 15th April, 2015.   The court has observed however that, with the exception of relief (i) which relates to the funeral and hospital expenses, all the other reliefs fall within the category of general damages.   The Courts in Ghana in assessing genera damages in running down actions such as the instant one normally resort to the procedure or method which has become 
 
11 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
known as the HEADS OF GENERAL DAMAGES.   The said procedure or method has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of AMAKOM SAW MILLS VRS MANSAH, 1963 1 GLR 368  and also in the recent Court of Appeal case of AWUKU VRS MAMUNI &SULEMAN (2014) 70 GMJ 144.   
In the cases cited above Supra, general damages and awards are made under different heads of damages such as; (1) compensation for surviving mother, (2) surviving father (3) siblings, (4) compensation for pain and suffering, (5) loss of expectation of life, (6) loss of prospective dependency, (7) loss of amenities of life and (8) loss of earnings.  In the early part of this judgment,  I mentioned per the evidence of the plaintiff that, the deceased left behind two children who are all minors, the plaintiff who is the surviving mother, Mr. Afoakwah, his surviving father and two other siblings all of whom depend on the deceased for one type of financial assistance or the other.   Applying the principle of Heads of general damages in this case under General Damages and as applied in the AMAKOM SAW MILLS, I would award the below damages; 
a) Compensation for two surviving children- GH&#8373;100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis) each. b) Compensation for surviving mother- GH&#8373; 50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis Only) c) Compensation for surviving father-  GH&#8373; 50,000 ( Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis Only) d) Compensation for pain and suffering- GH&#8373;30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Ghana Cedis Only) e) Compensation for loss of expectation of life- GH&#8373; 200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis Only) f) Compensation for loss of prospective dependency-  GH&#8373; 150,00.00 ( One Hundred And Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis Only) 
In respect of funeral and hospital bills, they fall under the category of special damages. However, in running down cases as in the instant one, the Courts have held the view that, in 
 
12 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
assessing damages, receipts are not necessary to back the plaintiff(s) claim because of the trauma that both the victim/deceased and the surviving dependents and relatives went through during and after the incident. 
In the instant suit, the special expenses made per Exhibit M, Mi, Mii is GH&#8373;495.00.    Exhibits F, F1 to F4 which cover the cost of ambulance, coffin, canopies, chairs and drinks amount to GH&#8373;1,700.00.  The Court has observed per the evidence that hiring a car from Accra to Dompoase in the Ashanti Region for the funeral also cost GH&#8373;1,000.00.    This brings the total special expenditures to: 
a) GH&#8373; 0,495.00 b) GH&#8373; 1,700.00 c) GH&#8373; 1,000.00 
           Total 3,195.00 
In respect of the issue of loss of earnings, the evidence on record is that, the late Isaac Nuamah died at the age of 32 (thirty two) years, and a welder by profession.    By Law his life expectancy is 60 years so that, but for this accident, he would have lived for the next 28 years.  He was not a salary worker and going by the principle as established by the Court of Appeal in the case of AWUKU VRS MAMUNI, it is safer to use the national minimum wage, which is GH&#8373;8.20.00  (eight cedis, twenty pesewas) as the basis for assessing damages under loss of earnings  heading and double this amount.   The reason for doubling this figure is that, it is fair and reasonable to assume that, the deceased would have improved or enhanced income if he had lived his full life and earn more than the present minimum wage.   Estimating therefore that the deceased, Isaac Nuamah who lived for 32 years at the time of his death would work for another 28 years before retiring at the compulsory age of 60 (sixty) years, he would be entitled to:- GH&#8373;16.40×30×28×12=GH&#8373;165,312.00, and for tax purposes, this amount is reduced by a third, which will bring the figure to:- GH&#8373;110,208.00.   The total awards made by the Court therefore comes to GH&#8373;790,403.00 (Seven Hundred Ninety thousand, Four and Three Ghana Cedis Only) which figure is more than the GH&#8373;500,000.00 damages claimed by the plaintiff.    
 
13 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH    
The question therefore is whether the trial Court has power to award damages more than what the plaintiff claims on the Writ.    My answer to this question is in the affirmative, based of course on the judgment of the AMAKOM SAW MILLS case. 
In that case and more particularly in holding (4) thereof, the Supreme Court had the following to say and I quote (4) “the practice in this country is that in all money claims, whether they be for liquidated or unliquidated amounts, a specific figure must, for revenue purposes, be claimed.   It was a pity that the plaintiff in the circumstances of this case should have been awarded less damages than the court had found to be due, merely because of the technicality of having claimed a lesser figure on the Writ.   In such circumstances the ends of justice will be much better served if the court exercises its powers under Order 28 Rule 12 of the Supreme (high) Court Civil Procedure Rules 1954, to amend the figure to which in its view the plaintiff is entitled”.    
I find the wisdom in the Supreme Court’s decision very humane and hold the view that by way of judicial precedent, that case is applicable to the instant suit. 
The Court therefore amends the claim of GH&#8373;500,000.00 as endorsed on the amended statement of claim filed on the 15th April, 2015,  to now read GHc790,403.00(Seven Hundred and Ninety Thousand Four Hundred and Three Ghana Cedis Only) to coincide with the figure to which in my view the plaintiff is entitled.  
More to this issue is the case of HANNA ASSI (NO.2) VRS GIHOC REFRIGERATION AND HOUSEHOLDS PRODUCTS LTD (2007-2008) SCGLR in which the apex Supreme Court held that, in the supreme interest of fairness and justice, and in the particular circumstances of a case the Court can award a relief to a party even though the relief might not have been claimed in the Writ and Statement of Claim.    
 
14 JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  GEORGINA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ESSAH     
I therefore enter final judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of GH&#8373;790,403.00 to cover the general and special damages that she deserves in the circumstances of the instant suit.  
Cost is assessed at GH&#8373;10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis Only)     
              (SGD.)         JUSTICE E. K. MENSAH         JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT                       
      LAWYERS: ALHASSAN MOHAMMED LAWAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT    DANIEL KOOMSON FOR THE DEFENDANT  