Kadel & 2 Ors Vrsb. B. C Industries Company (gh) Ltd & Anor [2022] GHASC 106 (29 April 2022)

Kadel & 2 Ors Vrsb. B. C Industries Company (gh) Ltd & Anor [2022] GHASC 106 (29 April 2022)

The appellants bore the burden of proving negligence by the respondent. The fire reports relied on by appellants were found unreliable, unprofessional, and contradicted by expert evidence. The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the lower courts' findings were supported by the evidence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 106
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Alsaj Abdul Kadel; Plaintiff/appellant: Fatawu Ibbrahim; Plaintiff/appellant: Yahaya Ibrahim; Defendant/respondent: B. B. C Industries Company (GH) Ltd.; Respondent: Ghana National Fire Service
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court) Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Burden of Proof, Bailment, Admissibility of Evidence, Public Policy
Source Language
english
Tort Contract Negligence Burden of Proof Bailment Admissibility of Evidence Public Policy

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alsaj Abdul Kadel

Plaintiff/appellant

Fatawu Ibbrahim

Plaintiff/appellant

Yahaya Ibrahim

Plaintiff/appellant

B. B. C Industries Company (GH) Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Ghana National Fire Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who bears the burden of proof of negligence in a bailment context where property is destroyed by fire?
  2. 2 Was there sufficient evidence to prove the respondent's negligence?
  3. 3 Is a statutory fire report admissible and conclusive without the author being called for cross-examination when challenged?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants bore the burden of proving negligence by the respondent. The fire reports relied on by appellants were found unreliable, unprofessional, and contradicted by expert evidence. The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the lower courts' findings were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed