DONKOR vs. OWONA FARKYE BROTHERS TRANSPORT [1973]DLHC2379

Date	1973-11-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2379

EDWARD WIREDU J.

L. G. CARSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

D. K. AFREH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2379
																																						<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" >DONKOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OWONA FARKYE BROTHERS TRANSPORT <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE
COAST]<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 152<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:
14 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">

L. G. CARSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

D. K. AFREH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>The brief
facts of this case which are straightforward and in the main not in dispute are
as follows: The plaintiff and the defendants are parties to an agreement the
terms of which are contained in a document which for the purpose of this trial
was by consent accepted as exhibit A. Exhibit A is titled “Hire-Purchase
Agreement Motor Vehicle” and was executed on 17 October 1970. Exhibit A is in
respect of a sale by the defendants (described therein as a motor dealer) of a
Toyota bus with registration No. GO 975 to the plaintiff who is a driver by
vocation. The hire-purchase price of the said bus on the undisputed facts was
¢7,200 out of which an initial deposit of ¢2,000 was paid by the plaintiff. The
balance of ¢5,200 was spread over seventeen months at ¢300 per month. Exhibit A
shows that the first instalment was to be paid on 17 November 1970 and the last
and final instalment on 30 April 1972. The facts further show that when exhibit
A was executed the bus was released to the plaintiff under terms contained
therein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
appears that during the currency of the agreement, the exact time is not clear
on the pleadings but from the statement of claim it might be some time after 30
June 1971, the plaintiff fell into some arrears with his instalments and this
resulted in the bus being seized by the defendants in exercise of their rights
under the terms of exhibit A. It appears that certain events took place between
the parties when the vehicle was seized but which for the purpose of this
ruling are irrelevant and therefore will not be discussed. The admitted facts
show that before the plaintiff’s action was commenced a total sum of ¢4,215 had
been paid under the agreement leaving a balance of ¢2,985. The defendants in
admitting the seizure of the vehicle as alleged by the plaintiff pleaded in
paragraph (4) of their statement of defence as follows:<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">“In
further answer to the said paragraph (4) of the claim the defendants say that
the plaintiff was owing part of the instalments due in January 1971 and also
part of June 1971, and what is worse the plaintiff without the knowledge and
consent of the defendants took the said vehicle to the Ivory Coast in utter
violation of the terms of the hire-purchase agreement dated 17 October 1970
executed between the parties therein.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
events which seem to have sparked off the present action were that according to
the plaintiff when the vehicle was seized he went to see the defendants and
pleaded with them for the release of the vehicle to him. According to the
plaintiff his request was acceded to on condition that he paid all the
outstanding arrears. In paragraphs (6) and (7) of his statement of claim he
pleaded as follows:<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">“(6) The
plaintiff first paid ¢360.00 then ¢300.00 but defendants refused to release the
vehicle. <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">(7)
Wherefore by virtue of section 57 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), the
plaintiff claims ¢4,875.00 being the total payments made by the plaintiff to
the defendants.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants joined issue with the plaintiff on the said paragraphs and contended
that exhibit A was executed in conformity with the provisions of section 76 of
the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), and denied the plaintiff’s claim.<o:p></o:p>