ASCHKAR AND ANOTHER vs. HARDY AND ANOTHER [1961]DLHC1981

Date	1961-03-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC1981

PREMPEH J

NII ODOI-ANNAN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

SIR A. ASAFU-ADJAYE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1961]DLHC1981
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >

ASCHKAR AND ANOTHER

[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]

[1963] 1 GLR 303

DATE: 15TH MARCH, 1963.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

NII
ODOI-ANNAN FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

</div>

PREMPEH J.

</div>

&nbsp;

In this action the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is for
the return to them of five documents of title to land situate along the East
Ring Road, Accra, or their value of £G45,000 and for £G25,000 damages for their
wrongful detention by the defendants. The particulars of the said title deeds
are as set out in the writ of summons.

By their statement of claim the plaintiffs aver that they are the
owners of five documents of title to land particularly specified in the writ of
summons, that they are entitled to possession of the said documents of title,
and that they have erected on the said land seven buildings to the total value
of £G45,000. They plead that on or about the 10th or 11th May, 1962, the second
plaintiffs deposited the said title deeds with the defendants who are partners
in a firm of solicitors-for investigation of the second plaintiffs’ title to a
portion of the said land.

They maintain that after the said investigation had long been
completed, they made several requests to the defendants for the return of the
said documents, but the defendants refused to deliver them up. They claim in
those circumstances for the return of those documents wrongfully detained by
the defendants and for damages for such wrongful detention.

By their statement of defence, the defendants admit that the
plaintiffs had made several demands from them for the return of the said five
title deeds and that they had refused to deliver them up to the plaintiffs, but
they deny that the plaintiffs had erected those seven buildings on the land at
the cost as pleaded by them.

They admit that the second plaintiffs are the owners of the five
documents of title claimed, but deny that the first plaintiffs are entitled to
possession of the said documents of title and therefore submit that they have
no right of action.

They aver that on the 11th May, 1963, one of the plaintiffs was
present at the offices of Lynes and Cridland (a firm of solicitors) together
with two of their (defendants’) representatives and a representative of a
company known as Kindor Export Company, who were their clients, when the said
representative of Kindor Export Company deposited with them (the defendants)
the said five documents of title with instructions that they should prepare a
deed of mortgage in their favour. They claim that they had been forbidden by
their clients, the said Kindor Export Company, to part with possession of the
said documents and that therefore the suit was properly between the plaintiffs
and Kindor Export Company.

The issues to be tried were settled and hearing of the case was
fixed for the 18th December, 1962. When the case came up for hearing on that
date, the defendants submitted to judgment on the first part of the plaintiffs’
claim, viz., the claim in respect of the return to them of those five documents
of title. Accordingly I entered judgment for the plaintiffs and against the
defendants on that part of the plaintiffs’ claim and ordered that the
defendants should return those documents to the plaintiffs. The defendants then
informed the court that they had returned those documents to the plaintiffs.
The only issue that was left to be decided then was the question of quantum of
damage. The question of costs also was left to be decided after dealing with
the issue.

I must here observe that although the defendants by their
pleadings had denied that those documents were deposited with them by the
plaintiffs, they are clearly precluded by the judgment to which they have
submitted and/or by their return of the documents from any more denying that fact.