R. T. BRISCOE (GHANA) LTD. vs. PREKO [1964]DLSC1948

Date	1964-05-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1948

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J

OLLENNU JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

C. E. QUIST FOR THE APPELLANTS.

T. A. TAGOE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1948
																																						<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" >R. T. BRISCOE (GHANA) LTD.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;PREKO <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 322<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">

DATE:
18 MAY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

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

C. E. QUIST FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

T. A. TAGOE FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SARKODEE-ADOO C.J., OLLENNU AND APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of Acolatse J., as he then was, dated 10 December
1962, in an interpleader suit in which certain moveable properties were seized
in execution by the deputy sheriff ‘s officer for sale to satisfy a decree in
favour of the plaintiffs-judgment-creditors (hereinafter referred to as the
defendants) against the defendants-judgment-debtors, a building company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
claimant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) laid claim to the
properties, and upon the matter coming up for hearing, the court ordered
pleadings. The plaintiff by her statement of claim averred in paragraph (3)
thus:<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">“The
defendants-judgment-debtors have no interests whatsoever in these properties
but were merely employed by the claimant to erect her building with materials
supplied by her.”<o:p></o:p>The
defendants in their statement of defence pleaded in paragraphs (1) and (2) in
the manner following:<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">“(1) That
the defendants-judgment-debtors were a well-known building contracting firm
which employed their own concrete mixing machine for the Abetifi building
operation and which concrete mixer was included in the articles seized.<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">&nbsp;(2) That the other articles seized were
purchased by the representatives of the defendants- judgment-debtors and not by
the claimant as alleged.”<o:p></o:p>The issue
settled for trial was:<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">“whether
or not the articles seized under process of the court in satisfaction of the
judgment debt and against the defendants-judgment-debtors are the property of
the claimant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s evidence and that of her only witness (her husband) in support of
her claim, inter alia, was that workmen were engaged to build the house and
further that the defendants- judgment-debtors were not the builders of the
house; Shamoon, a director of the defendant company supplied a foreman to
supervise the work and the foreman was paid directly by the plaintiff’s
husband.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
opinion the plaintiff ought not to have been allowed by the learned trial judge
to make a case which was contrary to her pleadings.<o:p></o:p>Apart
from the oral evidence, the documentary evidence in support of the claim were:
(a) house plan (exhibit A) and (b) waybills (exhibits 1-D5). According to the
trial judge’s notes exhibits B1 and B2 although objected to, were accepted for
what they are worth. Most of these waybills relate to alleged purchases after
the attachment and seizure which took place some time before 20 June 1962, and
therefore are irrelevant and strictly speaking, inadmissible. Waybills, unlike
receipts, are of no evidential value as to alleged purchase and in no way
support the claim.<o:p></o:p>