TAYLOR vs. S.Y. SASU AND SONS [1973]DLCA2209

Date	1973-11-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2209

APALOO JA

AMISSAH JA

SOWAH J.A.

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPELLANT.

NII ODOI ANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLCA2209
																																						<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" >TAYLOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>S.Y. SASU AND SONS <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<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;[1973]
1 GLR 176<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
20 NOVEMBER 1972.<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">

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NII ODOI ANNAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

APALOO, AMISSAH AND SOWAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J. A.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court against him in
this case. He has therefore appealed to this honourable court for redress. I
proceed now to examine the cause of his complaint in order to determine whether
he is deserving of our assistance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant, as plaintiff, brought this action against the respondents for
wrongful seizure of a vehicle. He had entered into a hire-purchase agreement
with the respondents to purchase this vehicle, a seven-ton Albion lorry
registered No. AT 7889. The date of the agreement, which was exhibited, is 4
August 1966. At the time it was entered into the currency in use was the old
cedi. In the course of the relationship of owner and hirer arising from the
agreement the currency was changed to the new cedi. As a result the moneys
stipulated under the agreement and paid are sometimes quoted in the record of
proceedings in old cedis and at other times in new cedis. For convenience I
shall use new cedis throughout this judgment. According to the terms of the
agreement the hire-purchase price of the vehicle was N¢12,400. This was to be
paid off by a deposit of N¢2,600, followed by fourteen monthly instalments of N¢700
each. The deposit was paid in two lots of N¢2,500 and N¢100. Thereafter the
appellant paid five of the monthly instalments, the last being evidenced by a
receipt dated 30 March 1967 which acknowledged payment for the January-February
instalment. No further payment was made until 19 July 1967. By then the
respondents had seized the vehicle. But after the payment of N¢610 in July, the
vehicle was apparently released and thereafter further instalments were paid
but of reduced amounts. From 1 January 1968 there were three payments of N¢500
covering the months of January, February and March that year. Then a payment of
N¢220 was made in June being described as part payment for April, one of N¢273
in February 1969; the last instalment which was made in March 1969 was for
N¢140. The respondents had some time in October 1968 seized the vehicle a
second time. They seized it for the third and final time in April 1969 and it
was this seizure which led to this action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
of the appellant was that by the time of the final seizure he had paid more
than half of the hire-purchase price of the vehicle. Therefore, by virtue of
section 69 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), the respondents were not
entitled to seize the vehicle without recourse to the courts. If the
appellant’s case on the payment of an amount over half the price is
substantiated then there is no doubt that the respondents acted illegally
because they acted without first seeking the assistance of the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents’ defence was that at the time of the seizure in June 1967, the
amount paid by the appellant was less than half the high purchase price. That
seizure was therefore proper. After that first seizure the hire-purchase
agreement of 4 August 1966 was determined. They released the vehicle to the
appellant upon a fresh hire-purchase agreement made on 1 December 1967. By that
time certain repairs had been done to the vehicle and four fresh tyres bought
for it. All this extra expenditure was added on to the outstanding amount under
the previous agreement to form a new hire-purchase price. It is not too clear
whether the new price was N¢8,410 or N¢7,800. Be that as it may, by this new
agreement the appellant was to discharge his obligation by a payment of N¢610
deposit and monthly instalments of N¢550 for fourteen months starting from the
beginning of December 1967. The appellant had paid only N¢1,720 which cannot be
said to be half of the new purchase price under the second agreement. Hence
seizure of the vehicle in April 1969 without first coming to court was
perfectly legal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence in the case consisted on</main>