Ebenezer Obeng Dompreh -vrs-anglogold Ashanti Ghana (ltd) [2022] GHACA 18 (8 June 2022)

Ebenezer Obeng Dompreh -vrs-anglogold Ashanti Ghana (ltd) [2022] GHACA 18 (8 June 2022)

The plaintiff failed to strictly prove his claim for special damages as required by law, as Exhibit E was not supported by sufficient corroborative evidence. The trial court was correct in rejecting Exhibit E as the sole basis for the quantum of damages. However, the appellate court found the general damages awarded...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] GHACA 18
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ebenezer Obeng Dompreh; Defendant/respondent: AngloGold Ashanti Ghana (Ltd)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
8 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed except for variation of damages
Legal Topics
Special Damages, Trespass, Compensation for Land Acquisition, Assessment of Damages, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Tort Compensation Law Mining Law Special Damages Trespass Compensation for Land Acquisition Assessment of Damages Burden of Proof

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebenezer Obeng Dompreh

Plaintiff/appellant

AngloGold Ashanti Ghana (Ltd)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to special damages as claimed for destruction of fish ponds by the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Exhibit E (estimates of loss) as self-serving and unreliable.
  3. 3 Whether the fish ponds were within the defendant’s operational area or outside its concession, and whether trespass occurred.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to strictly prove his claim for special damages as required by law, as Exhibit E was not supported by sufficient corroborative evidence. The trial court was correct in rejecting Exhibit E as the sole basis for the quantum of damages. However, the appellate court found the general damages awarded by the trial court to be insufficient and increased the total compensation to GH¢100,000.00. The claim for trespass was properly rejected as the fish ponds were within the defendant’s operational area, not outside its concession.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed except for variation of damages

Orders

  • Total compensation to plaintiff varied and increased to GH¢100,000.00 in place of the trial court’s award.