HEAL PRESS LTD. vs. CHAHIN & SONS [1961]DLHC5395

Date	1961-01-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5395

OLLENNU J.

PLAINTIFFS IN PERSON.

E. AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1961]DLHC5395
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">HEAL PRESS LTD.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">CHAHIN &amp; SONS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 60&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"> 16TH JANUARY, 1961.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

PLAINTIFFS
IN PERSON.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU, J.<o:p></o:p>Two reliefs are claimed by the plaintiffs; they are: (1) damages
for illegal distress, and (2) return of goods taken and carried away by the
defendants or their agents, in the alternative £G13,542 13s. 10d., value of the
said goods. A list of the goods in question is attached to the writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The claim for damages for illegal distress is based upon a
judgment of the 1st April, 1959, which set aside a judgment of the 31st
October, 1958, upon which the distress was levied. It is admitted by the plaintiffs
that the said judgment of the 1st April, 1959, was reversed by the Supreme
Court on the 29th November, 1960, and the judgment of the 31st October, 1958,
restored. It follows therefore that the execution which issued in pursuance of
that decree is legal, therefore the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for illegal
distress must fail.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs that all the articles
listed were in their business premises the last time they left the premises
before the execution, but were not there the first time that they re-entered
the premises after execution, stands uncontradicted, it was not cross-examined
upon, and no evidence was tendered to contradict or even throw doubts upon it.
The articles are, in the main, the sort of goods which would reasonably be
expected to be on premises of printers and publishers such as the plaintiffs
are. The only thing which tends to raise a little doubt is the fact that exact
figures as to the quantity of each item of goods is given, when according to the
managing director of the plaintiff-company all the books, files and other
documents which contain records of the articles were among the goods missing.
How the plaintiff got those figures has not been explained.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has been submitted by counsel for the defendants that since the
distress has been held by a higher court to be lawful, no action can lie for
wrongful detention of goods which might have been removed by those levying the
distress or their agents. This submission would be sound if the goods in question
were those which were seized in the cause of the lawful execution, and of which
an official inventory was made by the sheriff’s officers; but not otherwise. In
my opinion execution is not licence to the person lawfully levying it to take
and carry away goods which have not been attached; that is the sort of thing
the plaintiffs are complaining about. Their case is that upon levying the
execution the defendant attached certain properties and made an inventory of
them, exhibit A and then under cover of that execution took and carried away
other goods not attached. Those, they allege, are the goods set out in the list
attached to the writ of summons. In my opinion detention of goods under such
circumstances would be a wrongful act.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The difficulty in which the plaintiffs find themselves, however,
lie in the fact that they were not present when their premises were allegedly
opened at the instance of the defendants and consequently have not been able to
substantiate their plea that the defendants or their agents were the persons
who carried away or who must have carried away the goods in question. Moreover,
while I believe that the plaintiffs had goods of the description of those
enumerated in the list on the premises when they last left the premises, I am not
satisfied that the quantities alleged are correct. In the circumstances even if
it had been proved that the goods were taken and carried away by the
defendants, the court would not be in a position to assess their value. General
damages for trespass have not been claimed either.<o:p></o:p>