Case of the Week: Woledzi v. Akufo-Addo and another

High Court · [1982-83] GLR 421 · Ghana

Introduction

Long before Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo became President of Ghana, he was a young lawyer caught in a legal battle over a tragic road accident. This case tested the boundaries of negligence and what the Court does in instances where a victim contributes to the occurrence of the negligence (contributory negligence) under Ghanaian law. At stake was not only liability for a devastating collision but also how courts should apportion blame when both parties are at fault.

Facts

On 14 January 1967, Woledzi, a postal supervisor who had converted his car into a taxi, suffered a burst tyre while driving along Accra’s busy Ring Road. He stopped close to the central island (the flowerbed separating the dual carriageway) to change it. While kneeling beside the car to remove the jack, he was struck violently from behind by a vehicle driven by Nana Addo Danquah Akufo-Addo.

Plaintiff’s version: Woledzi claimed his car was stationary near the central island as he was fixing his tyre, when Akufo-Addo’s car crashed into him.

Defendant’s version: Nana Akufo-Addo argued that both cars were in motion and that Woledzi suddenly swerved into his lane, leaving no room to avoid the collision.

The impact was catastrophic. Woledzi was thrown into a three-week coma and left permanently disabled: blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, with facial paralysis, slurred speech, partial paralysis, and complete loss of working capacity.

Holding

The Court found that:

1. Woledzi’s car was indeed stationary but parked partly on the road, without lights or warning signs.
2. Akufo-Addo, however, failed to keep a proper lookout and drove too fast for the conditions.
3. Both men were negligent, but the Court apportioned liability two-thirds to Akufo-Addo, one-third to Woledzi.

Damages of ¢45,000 were assessed for Woledzi’s pain, suffering, disability, and loss of amenities. After apportionment, he received ¢30,000 plus costs.

Implication of the decision:

The decision clarifies that negligence in road traffic cases may be shared where both parties contribute to the accident. Breach of traffic regulations can be evidence of negligence but is not conclusive on its own. More broadly, the case establishes that drivers have a continuing duty to anticipate hazards and maintain proper control, while those who stop on the road must take steps to warn other road users.

Significant Quotes

“Whether the plaintiff parked on the road or on the island, it did not give the defendant the carte blanche to run into him.”

“A prudent and experienced driver placed in similar circumstances would have slowed down, waited until the way was clear and then gradually moved out of the road to the gravel path on the left. There is a wide gravel path which runs along the entire section of the road between the Danquah Circle and the Independence Circle.” 

“All the same, no prudent driver would drive anywhere as if he is, so to speak, the king of the road”

 – Koranteng-Addow J.

Commentary/Insight

The case underscored the principle of contributory negligence under Ghanaian law. The court reaffirmed that liability in negligence is not an-all-or-nothing matter. it can be shared proportionately when both parties contribute to the accident. importantly, breach of traffic regulation, while relevant, is only evidence of negligence and not conclusive proof of same.

Woledzi’s unfortunate decision to stop on the Ring Road without warning signals exposed him to danger. Yet, the greater fault lay with Akufo-Addo, who, despite being an articulate and confident lawyer even then, could not escape the hard rule of thumb that a driver must always anticipate obstacles and maintain control.

Interesting to note that the Defendant went on to become President of Ghana decades later. It shows that even national leaders once stood in the dock as ordinary litigants.