MANU vs. EMERUWA [1971]DLHC2130

Date	1971-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2130

ABBAN J.

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY (C. B. QUIST WITH HIM) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

K. F. ASAFU-ADJAYE (QUANSAH WITH HIM) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1971]DLHC2130
																																						<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" >MANU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>EMERUWA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;[1971] 1 GLR 442<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:
26 MARCH 1971.<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">

I.
AMOO-LAMPTEY (C. B. QUIST WITH HIM) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

K. F.
ASAFU-ADJAYE (QUANSAH WITH HIM) 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:0in 0in 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>In this
action the plaintiff claims from the defendant: (a) damages of N¢8.00 a day
from 15 October 1968, to the date of judgment for the use of the plaintiff’s
vehicle, No. GK 6; (b) an order for the return of the said vehicle to the
plaintiff. The facts in this case appeared to be simple and straightforward,
but they raised very interesting legal points which demanded careful attention.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff in his evidence averred that on 15 October 1968, he was in some
financial difficulties and he approached the defendant from whom he borrowed an
amount of N¢1,000.00. The plaintiff promised to refund the N¢1,000.00 in full
on 30 October 1968. According to the plaintiff, he deposited with the defendant
his vehicle, an Opel Caravan with registration number GK 6, together with its
insurance policy, quarter licence and key. The understanding was that the
defendant was to keep the said vehicle and those documents as security for the
repayment of the said loan of N¢1,000.00. The transaction was embodied in
writing which was tendered by the plaintiff as exhibit A. The plaintiff stated
that the defendant was not to use the vehicle. But contrary to the agreement,
the defendant used the vehicle with the result that the said vehicle was badly
damaged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
witness for the plaintiff, Kofi Akowua, stated that the plaintiff ‘s said
vehicle was sent to his workshop for repairs by the defendant and her son
Anthony. This witness, who is a fitter by profession, further averred that on
the first occasion when he tested the vehicle at the request of the defendant
he found that there was something wrong with the clutch and he repaired it. He
said the defendant’s son used the vehicle to learn how to drive and in the
course of these driving lessons, the son damaged the steering and the brakes.
As a result, the vehicle was sent to his fitting shop for the third time for repairs.
He said on this third occasion the letter “L”, written on a white card, had
been conspicuously fixed on the car indicating that the vehicle was being used
or driven by a learner. Mr. Akowua stated that after he had effected repairs on
the vehicle he used to see the vehicle being driven by the defendant’s son,
Anthony, in the town and along trunk roads.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant in her evidence stated that about three years ago the plaintiff in
the company of another young man went to her shop and asked her for a loan of
N¢1,000.00. To be sure of repayment the plaintiff offered his vehicle (No. GK
6) as security and the plaintiff promised to pay the loan within three weeks
from that date. She said a document was prepared incorporating the terms as
stated above. This document was read over and interpreted to her, she being an
illiterate. It must be observed at this stage that the defendant, in her
evidence, did not deny the plaintiff’s allegation that the vehicle is now
damaged. She did not also deny the plaintiff’s averments that she used the
vehicle and that her son was seen very often driving the vehicle not only in
the town but also along trunk roads. Again the defendant never denied that her
son Anthony had taken driving lessons with the plaintiff’s vehicle and in the
process damaged the steering and the brakes.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff contended that the transaction between the parties was that
of pledge, and that the defendant had no right to use the vehicle because there
was nothing in the agreement authorising her to use the vehicle and also
because there was the likelihood of the vehicle being damaged through usage.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff therefore submitted that the defendant
breached the contract of pledge and should be condemned in dam</main>