BARNES vs. AMEEN SANGARI & CO. [1962]DLHC1393

Date	1962-05-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1393

CHARLES J.

C.M. CANN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

R.S. BLAY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1393
																																						<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:#00B0F0">BARNES<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:#00B0F0">&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:#00B0F0">AMEEN SANGARI &amp; CO. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 350<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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"> 14TH MAY, 1962.<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">

C.M.
CANN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

CHARLES J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF
CHARLES, J.<o:p></o:p>In this action the plaintiff claims from the defendants the sum of
£G787 14s. being (1) £687 14s. as money had and received by the defendants
under a hire-purchase agreement, and (2) £G100 as general damages. The
plaintiff’s claim is brought under the provisions of section 12(1) of the
Hire-Purchase Act, 19581(1) which reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Where goods have been let under a hire-purchase agreement and
seventy-five per cent of the hire-purchase price has been paid, whether in
pursuance of a judgment or otherwise, or tendered by or on behalf of the hirer
or any guarantor, the owner shall not enforce any right to recover possession
of the goods from the hirer otherwise than by action.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 28th August, 1959, the defendants let to the plaintiff on
hire-purchase terms a motor car the price of which was £G860 payable by a first
instalment of £G100 and the balance by twelve monthly instalments of £63 6s.
8d. In November, 1960, the plaintiff, who had not been making payments
regularly, was in arrears of £G172 6s., though he had paid altogether £G687
14s. On the 14th December, 1960, one J.N. Korsah sued the plaintiff and
obtained judgment in the local court for £G25 with costs of £G2. On the 16th
December, 1960 execution was levied upon the vehicle and the plaintiff signed a
certificate, exhibit E, claiming the car as his own property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is a conflict in the evidence concerning the circumstances
under which the vehicle was released. The sheriff, P.W.1, stated that on the
strength of a letter exhibit D, written by J.N. Korsah he released the vehicle
to D.W.1 although D.W.1 was not authorised by the plaintiff to take delivery.
D.W.1 stated that he told P.W.1 that the vehicle was owned by the defendants
and P.W.1 delivered the vehicle to him after he had promised to try and collect
from the plaintiff and pay to J.N. Korsah the amount of the judgment-debt and
costs. According to J.N. Korsah he agreed to release the vehicle to D.W.1 who
claimed it on behalf of the defendants because D.W.1 promised to pay him the
amount of the judgment and costs. I accept this last version as substantially
true because I believe that D.W.1 did tell P.W.1 that the defendants were the
owners of the vehicle and P.W.1 would not have delivered the vehicle to D.W.1
on behalf of the plaintiff as D.W.1 was never authorised by the plaintiff to
take delivery.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By clause 8 of the hire-purchase agreement, exhibit A, if any
execution or distress is levied or threatened to be levied upon the motor
vehicle the owners may forthwith determine the hire without notice and may
forthwith seize and take possession of the said motor vehicle wherever the same
may be. In Jelks v. Hayward,2(2) the headnote reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Furniture was let for hire with an option of purchase under a
hire-purchase agreement, which contained a clause giving the owners the right
without previous notice to determine the hiring and retake possession of the
furniture, if it should at any time be seized or taken in execution. The
furniture was taken in execution by the high bailiff of a county court, and, no
claim having been made to it, was appraised and sold under the execution and
the proceeds paid into court, and the furniture delivered to the purchaser. On
the day after the sale the owners heard for the first time of the seizure and
sale of the furniture, and gave notice of their claim to the proceeds. An
interpleader summons was issued at the instance of the high bailiff, and in the
course of the interpleader proceedings the execution creditor admitted the
title of the claimants, who gave a notice claiming damages against the high
bailiff in respect of the alleged conversion of the furniture by selling it:—<o:p></o:p>