General damages in Ghana case law.

An appellate court does not interfere with such an award simply because it might itself have selected a different figure; it interferes only where the award proceeds on a wrong principle or is so high or so low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate.

C. A. LIMITED VRS ANOINTED STAR CONSTRUCTION & 2 ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/03/2022 [2026] SLR (SC) 36 · Supreme Court · 2026 · TANKO AMADU JSC

An appellate court might reverse or vary the award of damages by a trial court in the exercise of its discretion on the grounds that: (a) the trial judge had acted on some wrong principles of law; or (b) the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it, in the judgment of the appellate court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the Plaintiff was entitled

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

As stated above, both the appellant and respondent are urging this court to interfere with the award of damages made by the trial court. In that case they are required to show that the trial court applied some wrong principles in making the award or failed to take some relevant matters into consideration. Short of satisfying this requirement, they must also demonstrate that the award is either so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages. See the case of BAIDEN v. SOLOMON (1963) 1 GLR 488 at 496.

REX OWUSU MARFO V. JOY INDUSTRIES LTD HI/ 34/ 2020 [2021] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2021 · ANTHONY OPPONG JA

Damages, in tort, are awarded to distinct heads of claim and there is no such concept as lump sum award. We will therefore set aside the award of GH₵100,000.00 described as lump sum made by the Court of Appeal since the award was made under no specific head of claim known to the law of tort, and as such was made under wrong principles.

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

In making awards in the form of monetary compensation in personal injury claims, the Court does not imagine any amount at all or have a table with some guidelines or by any mathematical exactitude, establish what amount of money will represent the pain and suffering which a claimant has been occasioned on account of the accident. No two claims in such cases can be compared and figures of one cannot be imposed on the other. This is where the dilemma and challenge lie. The court ought to determine the quantum of monetary compensation to award the complainant on the basis of the facts of each case

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

In Roach vs Yates [1938] 1 KB 256, the English Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for the assessment of damages in personal injury claims. These guidelines which were quoted with approval in the Appiah vs. Anane (supra) are that a claimant or a Plaintiff in a personal injury claim is entitled to: "(i) pecuniary losses and expenses down to the date of the action; (ii) prospective loss of wages; (iii) nursing attendance, a sum sufficient to cover a reasonable weekly payment for that purpose during the period of his life as shortened by the accident; and (iv) past and future physical and mental pain and suffering, and the shortening of his life, a sum, in estimating which the following consideration should be kept in view, namely, that no amount of money, however large, could fully compensate the plaintiff for these injuries, and that the most that could be done was to award him such compensation as was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

Admittedly, awarding damages in the form of monetary compensation for personal injury claims is not an easy task. One cannot conjure any figure at all or have a table with some guidelines or by any arithmetic exactitude establish what is the amount of money which would represent pain and suffering which a person like the plaintiff has been occasioned in an accident. No two claims in such injuries can be compared and figures of one cannot be imposed on the other. This is where the dilemma and challenge He..........we believe the facts of each case should determine which compensation the court should award in claims for personal injuries

BRIGHT ASANTE APPIAH VRS 1. HUANG YUMIN H 2. SUNLIGHT ENGINEERING LTD [2024] SLR (SC) 2 · Supreme Court · 2024 · KWOFIE JSC

In a claim for damages based on an allegation of negligence, once the trial Judge comes to a conclusion, upon the evaluation of the evidence, that the Plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence to prove her allegation of negligence, the natural consequence is for the trial Judge to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. It is not open for the trial Judge, after a finding that negligence has not been proved, to go ahead and assess damages in favour of the very person who, allegedly, has failed to prove the very claim for which she has come to court.

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

It therefore bears emphasis that once a case of infringement of copyright is established, the right owner is entitled to damages per se, without proof of damages. That is not to say that if the right owner has suffered any particular special damage, he cannot sue for special damages in which case the law, both substantive and procedural, would require him to particularize and prove same specifically. The emphasis is that proof of damages in the case of infringement of copyright is not a requirement.

REX OWUSU MARFO V. JOY INDUSTRIES LTD HI/ 34/ 2020 [2021] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2021 · ANTHONY OPPONG JA

It is refreshing to observe that the three factors to consider in awarding damages as stated above have, by and large, been codified in the High Court (Civil Procedure ) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). Order 63 Rules 8 and 10 thereof provide: 8.1) Where in an action for actual or threatened infringement of an intellectual property right the infringement is proved, the Court may order the party responsible for the infringement to pay to the right holder damages which are adequate to compensate for the injury, the right holder has suffered 2) The Court may in addition to awarding damages under sub rule (1), order a person whom it has found to have infringed the property right of a right holder, to pay the costs of the right holder 10. The Court may in an action for actual or threatened infringement of an intellectual property right, having regard to the circumstances and in particular to (a) The flagrancy of the infringement, and (b) The benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement award additional damages as the case may require.

REX OWUSU MARFO V. JOY INDUSTRIES LTD HI/ 34/ 2020 [2021] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2021 · ANTHONY OPPONG JA

In principle then, in the absence of any contrary statutory or contractual provision, the measure of damages in general damages for wrongful termination of employment in the common law of Ghana is compensation, based on the employee's current salary and other conditions of service, for a reasonable period within which the aggrieved party is expected to find alternative employment. Put in other words, the measure of damages is the quantum of what the aggrieved party would have earned from his employment during such reasonable period, determined by the court, after which he or she should have found alternative employment. This quantum is, of course, subject to the duty of mitigation of damages.

LT. COL. S. B. ASHUN VRS ACCRA BREWERY LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/18/2007 [2026] SLR (SC) 34 · Supreme Court · 2008 · DATE-BAH JSC

Generally, damages in tort are awarded by way of monetary compensation for a loss or losses which a Plaintiff has actually sustained, and the measure of damages awarded on this basis may vary infinitely according to the individual circumstances of any particular case. It is for a Plaintiff to prove what loss if any, it has suffered by reason of a tort and when as in this case, the effect of the tort is potentially adverse interference with the course of its business operations, it is for it to establish by evidence that there was in fact such adverse interference and that it suffered a properly quantifiable loss by reason of it.

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for reparation of damages you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured or who has suffered in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation

BERTHA KWARTENG vs. ORANS LIFE COMPANY LIMITED CIVIL APPEAL NO: J4/56/2024 [2025] SLR (SC) 15 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ASIEDU JSC

The essence of damages is not meant to punish the defendants by conferring a windfall on the plaintiff and also not to disadvantage the plaintiff from getting the required compensation. Damages are awarded to compensate the injured party and taking into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as found in the exhibits the amount of GH(f99,440.00 awarded under different headings were meant to compensate the plaintiff and not to enrich him.

BRIGHT ASANTE APPIAH VRS 1. HUANG YUMIN H 2. SUNLIGHT ENGINEERING LTD [2024] SLR (SC) 2 · Supreme Court · 2024 · KWOFIE JSC