The record shows that this sum of GH^6,933.74 covering the cost of transportation was not pleaded by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal in our view was right in excluding this amount from the sum of GH^15,933.74 awarded by the trial court as Special Damages.
Measure of special damages for a demolished building
Special damages are intended to place the injured party in the position they would have been in but for the wrongful act, and in this case, that necessarily entails awarding the Plaintiff the amount required to reconstruct the demolished structure, not merely the outdated sum originally expended on its development.
In our view, the essence of a claim for special damages lies in the fundamental principle that the party seeking such damages must establish, with credible evidence, the fact of the occurrence of the loss and the degree of damage experienced as a result of the loss. It would be both absurd and a grave miscarriage of justice for us to endorse the argument of the Defendant that, despite the Plaintiff having incontrovertibly proven the demolition of her building, the appropriate measure of special damages should be limited to the historical cost of constructing the property rather than the current cost of rebuilding it. 66. Special damages are intended to place the injured party in the position they would have been in but for the wrongful act, and in this case, that necessarily entails awarding the Plaintiff the amount required to reconstruct the demolished structure, not merely the outdated sum originally expended on its development.
As to the proof of damages, a distinction of long standing, and central to grounds (iii) and (iv) below, must be drawn between general and special damages. General damages are such as the law presumes to flow from the wrong and need not be specifically pleaded or proved in amount; they are at large and are assessed by the court. Special damages are the precise pecuniary losses the claimant has actually sustained, which are not presumed and which must therefore be both specifically pleaded and strictly proved, item by item and in amount. A claimant who pleads a special loss but fails to prove its quantum does not thereby forfeit all recovery where the fact of loss is established; the court may award nominal damages as a reasonably fair approximation.
The claim for loss of use was a claim for special damages, and the law governing such claims is settled. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, both as to the subject matter of the loss and as to its value. The two requirements are distinct, and the consequences of proving the one but not the other are important. Where a claimant proves the subject matter of his loss but fails to prove its value, the court does not dismiss the claim and send him away empty-handed; it awards nominal damages, representing a reasonably fair approximation of the value of what was lost: NORGBEY VS. ASANTE [1992] 1 GLR 506.
A distinction exists between general and special damages: for whereas general damages arise by inference of law and therefore does not need to be proved by evidence; special damages representing a loss which the law will not presume to be the consequence of the Defendant’s act but which depends in part, on the special circumstances, must therefore be claimed on the pleading and particularized to show the nature and extent of the damages claimed. The Plaintiff must go further to prove by evidence that the loss alleged was incurred and that it was the direct result of the Defendant’s conduct.
In our view, the essence of a claim for special damages lies in the fundamental principle that the party seeking such damages must establish, with credible evidence, the fact of the occurrence of the loss and the degree of damage experienced as a result of the loss.
where the plaintiff has suffered a properly quantifiable loss, he must plead specifically his loss and prove it strictly. If he does not, he is not entitled to anything unless general damages are also applicable