Ackon Vrs Abosso Goldfields Ltd [2022] GHASC 20 (26 April 2022)

Ackon Vrs Abosso Goldfields Ltd [2022] GHASC 20 (26 April 2022)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his glaucoma was caused by the defendant's breach of duty or workplace conditions. There was no credible evidence linking the disease to the work environment, and both experts agreed the cause of glaucoma is unknown. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's reversal of the High Court's judgment was affirmed.

Citation
[2022] GHASC 20
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: James Ackon; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Abosso Goldfields Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Occupational Disease, Burden of Proof, Causation
Source Language
English
Tort Law Employment Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Occupational Disease Burden of Proof Causation

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Ackon

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Abosso Goldfields Ltd.

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's glaucoma was caused by his work environment with the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent or in breach of statutory duty under the Labour Act
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof was discharged by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his glaucoma was caused by the defendant's breach of duty or workplace conditions. There was no credible evidence linking the disease to the work environment, and both experts agreed the cause of glaucoma is unknown. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's reversal of the High Court's judgment was affirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal judgment affirmed