ABAKA vs. ANSAH [1965]DLHC146

Date	1965-11-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC146

ARCHER J.

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE FOR THE APPELLANT.

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC146
																																						<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" >ABAKA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ANSAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 688<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:
29 NOVEMBER 1965.<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">

ESSILFIE-BONDZIE FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

T. D. BRODIE-MENDS 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>The facts
in this appeal briefly are as follows: the appellant, by a credit sale
agreement dated 15 May 1964 (admitted in evidence in the court below as exhibit
A) purchased one Bedford truck No. CP 8405 from the respondent for the price of
£G300. Under the terms of the agreement, the appellant paid an initial deposit
of £G100 and was to pay thereafter £G40 a month as from 15 June 1964 until the
balance of £G200 had been paid. Although the first instalment was due on 15
June 1964, the appellant paid it on 26 June 1964 after the respondent had seized
the vehicle on 16 June. The lorry was released to him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thereafter
no further monthly payments appeared to have been made by the appellant. On 27
September 1964, the respondent seized the lorry when the appellant was in
default in respect of the monthly instalments due in July, August and September
1964 by virtue of a power of seizure conferred by the credit sale agreement on
him in case of default. On 12 October 1964, the respondent notified the
appellant of his intention to sell the vehicle which was subsequently sold.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant took action in the circuit court at Cape Coast and claimed from the
defendant £G232 10s. 6d. as special damages and £G250 for breach of contract
and wrongful seizure. The claim was defended by the respondent on the sole ground
that the vehicle was seized and sold under the terms of the credit sale
agreement and that the appellant’s claim was misconceived and ought to be
struck out.<o:p></o:p>After
hearing evidence, the learned circuit judge gave judgment for the respondent
with 20 guineas costs. The appellant has appealed to this High Court from the
judgment on the grounds:<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">(a) That
the evidence does not support the judgment of the circuit court;<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">(b) That
the judge misdirected himself as to the effect in law of an agreement for sale
on credit; and<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">(c) That
the learned judge was wrong in holding that ownership in the vehicle, the
subject-matter in dispute, remained with the defendant-respondent at the time
of the sale and delivery of the said vehicle.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
appeal was about to be heard, counsel for the appellant sought leave of the
court to argue supplementary grounds of appeal and abandoned the original
grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant’s counsel argued that first, the alleged notice given to the
plaintiff was inadequate to justify the defendant’s seizure and sale of the
vehicle. Secondly, the circuit judge was wrong in holding that the seizure and
sale of the Bedford truck by the defendant was not wrongful. On these two
grounds it was submitted that the right of seizure was not properly exercised.
Moreover, when the notice of intention to sell was sent to the appellant on 20
October 1964, a writ of summons had already been issued against the respondent
on 8 October. Furthermore the notice of intention to sell was not reasonable.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I must
confess</main>