ATTA vs. ADEVOR [1976]DLCA361

Date	1976-05-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA361

SOWAH J.A

ANIN J.A

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

GIKUNOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA361
																																						<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" >ATTA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADEVOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 343<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:
18 MAY 1976.<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">

GIKUNOO FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

SOWAH, ANIN AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>The facts
in this appeal are not much in dispute and they are briefly that on 8 February
1967 the appellant bought on credit a vehicle No. AG 7982 from the respondent
at the price of ¢1,800. In accordance with the agreement he made part payment
of ¢800 leaving the balance to be paid by stipulated instalments which were
embodied in a note described as a “deed of promise” and which reads:<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">“DEED OF
PROMISE Whereas I, the undersigned, Joseph Kofi Atta of Kpandu Aloi, Kpandu
District, Volta Region of Ghana, am indebted to E. K Adevor of Aveme Drah,
Kpandu District, Volta Region of Ghana in the sum of £G500 (¢1,200) being
balance of that three-ton Austin track No. AG 7982, I did buy from him. This
serves as my deed of promise, promising to pay to the said E. K. Adevor the
balance of the said amount of £G500 (¢1,200) by a monthly instalment of £G70
(¢168) pending full payment. Failure on my part to make good payment of the
said amount on the instalment basis above-stated, the owner of the said
vehicle, E. K. Adevor, shall have right to seize, and dispose of on sale to any
other person or persons the said vehicle after a month’s grace for the recovery
of his balance that may be due and owing by me. Dated at Kpandu, 8 February
1967. (Sgd.) Joseph Kofi Atta (J. K. Atta) DEBTOR.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As it is
often the experience in this kind of transaction, the delivery of the vehicle
was subsequent to the signing of the agreement. More often than not the
purchasers are so anxious to obtain possession that they fail to exercise
caution by taking expert advice or adequate steps to check the road worthiness
of the vehicle before sale or delivery to them. The victims are almost
invariably drivers who want to own their own vehicles.<o:p></o:p>Be that
as it may, soon after delivery the vehicle broke down and had to undergo
extensive repairs. In the result the appellant was unable to meet his
obligations under the agreement and the respondent exercised his right of
forfeiture. The appellant pleaded with the respondent who restored the vehicle.
The appellant raised a loan of ¢600 to effect the necessary repairs. Thus he
had to repay both the loan and the instalment, a task he was unequal to. After
a few months’ default to pay the instalments the respondent seized the vehicle
for the second time on 31 July 1968 but was again persuaded not only to release
the vehicle but to reduce the instalments. Even with these concessions, the
appellant defaulted in the payments as they fell due, and the vehicle was
finally seized on 18 December 1968.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant promptly issued a writ claiming:<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">“(1) A
declaration that the Austin truck No. AG 7982 wrongfully seized by the
defendant on 18 December 1968 is the property of the plaintiff. <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">(2) An
order for the return of the said vehicle or its value to the plaintiff. <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">(3)
Damages for unlawful detention of same in respect of loss of earnings of the
said vehicle at a rate of ¢20.00 per working day up to the date of delivery.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There
followed a statement of claim setting out the alleged grounds for the wrongful
seizure. The respondent denied that the seizure was wrongful and relied
squarely on “the deed of promise.”<o:p></o:p>However,
before the trial of the action, th</main>