AYER vs. KUMORDZIE [1964]DLHC9278

Date	1964-11-20
Suit No.	[1964] GLR 622
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC9278

BOISON J.

J.C. ARMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

E.D. KOM FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1964]DLHC9278
																																						<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" >AYER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KUMORDZIE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

[1964] GLR 622&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; &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:
20TH NOVEMBER, 1964<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J.C.
ARMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

E.D.
KOM FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><h2 style="margin-top:.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:
0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:115%">JUDGMENT OF BOISON J.<o:p></o:p></h2>The
plaintiff by her writ of summons claimed the return of her goods wrongfully
detained by the defendant and £G500 damages for wrongful detention or in the
alternative, £G2,500 damages. The goods referred to in the statement of claim
as the said chattels “are lots 1, 2, 3, attached to the statement of claim.”
The agreed issues were:<o:p></o:p>“(a) Whether or not the plaintiff is the
owner of and entitled to the possession of the chattels the subject-matter of
the suit.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether the plaintiff and the defendant lived
and cohabited as concubines or under customary law&nbsp; and whether the defendant under any customary
law is entitled to detain or impound the plaintiff’s chattels under the circumstances.<o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the defendant has any claim or
any right at all over properties bought by him, to the plaintiff during their
stay together.<o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether or not the plaintiff has suffered
loss and damages by the wrongful detention of her properties by the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
case of the plaintiff was that she has been a hair-dresser and seamstress by
profession from 1952 to April 1964. In 1961, she was staying with her mother,
the second witness for the plaintiff, before she came to stay together with the
defendant. She brought the cloths, sewing machine and working tools along with
her and during her stay with defendant, she has been buying new cloths and
customers have been bringing their materials to be made into dresses. The
articles in lot 1 attached to their writ of summons are those she brought from her mother’s
house to the defendant’s as well as articles she has
bought herself during her stay with the defendant. In lot 2 some of the
articles belong to herself, others belong to her customers who had brought them
to the plaintiff to make dresses for them. In lot 2, items 1, 2, 3 are articles
bought by the defendant for her. As a hairdresser and seamstress she makes on
the average £G5-£G6 per day, i.e. from Monday to Friday (i.e. £G25) and for
Saturdays and Sundays she makes £G8 10s. per day, i.e. £G16—the
total income per week would,
therefore, appear to be about<o:p></o:p>