QUAYE vs. R.T. BRISCOE LTD. [1962]DLSC1691

Date	1962-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1691

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

MILLS-ODOI JSC

AKUFO-ADDO J.S.C.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

C. T. YEBUAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1962]DLSC1691
																																						<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">QUAYE <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">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">R.T. BRISCOE LTD. <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 2 GLR 182<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"> 21ST DECEMBER, 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">

DR.
DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

C.
T. YEBUAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.<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">

SARKODEE-ADOO, MILLS-ODOI AND
AKUFO-ADDO, JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Mills-Odoi J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. By exhibit
B dated the 25th October, 1957, the appellant entered into a hire-purchase
agreement with the respondents for the purchase of a Mercedes Benz tipper
truck, No. AF 603. The agreement was to expire on the 16th December, 1958. One
of the clauses of the agreement permitted the respondents to seize the vehicle
in the event of default in any of the payments due. The appellant fell into
arrears with his payments and at the date of termination of the agreement there
was a balance of £G777 7s. 3d. due and owing by him. Instead of exercising
their right of seizure of the vehicle under the hire-purchase agreement, the
respondents entered into a new hire-purchase agreement with the appellant,
exhibit C, which was executed on 16th December, 1958, in which the outstanding
balance of £G777 7s. 3d. was treated as the purchase price of the vehicle.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By exhibit C the appellant agreed to pay the sum of £G777 7s. 3d.
within eight months from the date of the agreement, viz: (a) £G75 per month for
the first four months commencing from the 16th January, 1959, and thereafter on
the 16th day of each succeeding month; (b) £G100 per month for three months
commencing from the 16th May, 1959; and (c) the final instalment of £G77 7s.
3d. to be paid on the 16th September, 1959. Exhibit C also permitted the
respondents to seize the vehicle if the appellant made default in paying any
instalment. After seizure, “all payments previously made by the Hirer under the
agreement shall be forfeited to the Owner.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was not disputed that on the 16th September, 1959, the date for
payment of the final instalment, the appellant was indebted to the respondents
in the sum of £G495 10s. 2d. The respondents did not enforce their right of
seizure under exhibit C until the 11th March, 1960, when the appellant’s
indebtedness to them had increased to £G576 18s. 1d. made up as follows: (a)
£G402 13s. 10d. for arrears on the instalments; (b) £G97 5s. for insurance; and
(c) £G76 19s. 3d. for repairs. After the date of seizure the vehicle remained
in the possession of the respondents for nearly two months, and was thereafter
sold on the 4th May, 1960.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellant then instituted this action, claiming £G4,000
damages for wrongful seizure and detention of the vehicle and for breach of
warranty.<o:p></o:p>Clause 15 of exhibit C empowered the respondents to seize the
vehicle “if the Hirer fails punctually to pay the rent . . . or to observe or
perform any of the provisions and conditions hereof. . . .” It was not disputed
by the appellant that he had defaulted in payment of the rent at the date of
seizure of the vehicle. In exercising their right of seizure of the vehicle the
respondents acted within the terms of exhibit C. We are therefore satisfied
that the seizure was lawful.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We shall now consider whether the detention of the vehicle was
wrongful. The appellant contended that the conduct of the respondents after the
date of seizure of the vehicle was in breach of clause 17 of exhibit C. He
alleged that on the 17th March, 1960, six days after respondents had taken
possession of the vehicle, he tendered to them the sum of £G776 then due and
owing by him, including expenses on insurance and repairs; but they refused to
accept the money and they also failed to return the vehicle to him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>