NSEYEN vs. JOS HANSEN AND SOEHNE (GHANA) LTD. [1967]DLHC1518

Date	1967-02-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLHC1518

AMISSAH J.A.

ASARE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

H. P. SWANIKER FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1967]DLHC1518
																																						<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" >NSEYEN <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>JOS HANSEN AND SOEHNE (GHANA) LTD. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 58<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:
17 FEBRUARY
1967.<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">

ASARE 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AMISSAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the defendant company in
March 1962. Under it the plaintiff hired a Simca Etoile car No. SG 5187 which
was to become her property after a cash deposit of £G300 and the payment of ten
monthly instalments of £G41 9s; the total amount payable being £G714 10s. The
plaintiff paid all but £G79 10s.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Apparently
some fault developed in the car in July 1963, which necessitated repairs to the
tune of £G396 8s. 2d. Of this amount, the plaintiff paid £G100 in cash. And it
was arranged that the balance be paid by six monthly instalments of £G45 and a
final instalment of £G26 8s. 2d. This arrangement was evidenced by a letter
written by the defendant company to the plaintiff on 16 August 1963, and
produced by the plaintiff. It was also signed by the plaintiff’s husband, Mr.
Nseyen, who was her sole witness in the case and who apparently carried on all
negotiations and transactions on her behalf as far as this car was concerned.
Part of the arrangement was in the following terms: “in case the payment
conditions should not be fulfilled the company reserve the right to seize the
above mentioned car.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There was
a further term by which the defendant company guaranteed parts of the car as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“Incidentally,
we are prepared to grant a guarantee of six months to the engine parts or 5,000
miles.” The parties’ claims in this dispute have centred round their
understanding of the rights and duties to which these terms gave rise.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On or
about 7 September 1963, the car was sent back to the defendant company’s
workshop for what Mr. Nseyen described as an engine check-up because the car
was not working properly. He thought there was a fault in the engine which made
it impossible for the car to run. To his surprise, he was charged £G38 19s. 6d.
He expected that the work done would be covered by the guarantee. So he
protested to the workshop manager, Mr. Ibeken, and collected the car without
paying for the repairs. Mr. Ibeken’s version of the matter was different.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to him, on 7 September 1963, when the car was brought to the workshop, there
was no fault with the engine parts. The fault then was with the transmission,
also described as the differential, which had nothing to do with the engine
parts. Therefore the guarantee did not cover this repair and that was why the
charge of £G38 19s. 6d for the repair was made. He put in a document, described
as a job card, as evidence of the nature of the repairs done on this occasion.
Apparently the usual practice in the workshop is for the job card to be prepared
itemising the desired repairs and this is signed by the customer to show that
he has authorised those repairs. The particular job card for the repairs done
on the plaintiff’s car in September 1963, was not signed by the plaintiff or
Mr. Nseyen. And although it was not objected to when tendered, the point was
made in cross-examination of Mr. Ibeken that there was something wrong with the
job card.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But
having regard to Mr. Nseyen’s own evidence that he could not tell whether a car
engine can run properly without the shock absorbers of the car, it may be
appreciated that his knowledge of the anatomy of a car is practically
non-existent. It is understandable that to him any fault which caused the car
not to move should be attributed to the engine. But if his basic lack of
knowledge made him think that way, it did not make his thinking right. Mr.
Ibeken said that sometimes a customer knew the fault on the car and he decided
what repairs were necessary. But if he did not know what was wrong technically
then the engineer of the company would test the fault and advise the customer
about which spe</main>