FRAFRA vs. BOAKYE [1976]DLCA387

Date	1976-03-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA387

ANIN J.A

ANNAN J.A

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.A.

MMIEH FOR THE APPELLANT.

AKAINYAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA387
																																						<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" >FRAFRA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BOAKYE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 332<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 MARCH 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">

MMIEH 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">

ANIN, ANNAN AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANNAN J.A.<o:p></o:p>In this
appeal the appellant challenges the trial judge’s decision awarding the
respondent special and general damages for breach of a contract of hiring of
the appellant’s tractor by the respondent at the rate of N¢80.00 per day for
the express purpose of hauling timber logs in the respondent’s timber
concession at Mim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
judge found that the appellant was in breach of the contract of hiring in that
his tractor was defective and was therefore unable to haul the respondent’s
logs at a rate of performance which he found had been agreed between the
parties as a necessary part of their contract. He awarded special damage on
this basis. He also awarded general damages for loss suffered by the respondent
as a result of his inability to perform another contract with a timber company
for the supply of logs to that company. This inability, as found by the trial
judge, was due to the appellant’s breach of his contract to provide an
efficient tractor for hiring by the respondent. The trial judge found that the
respondent told the appellant that he needed a tractor that could haul 30 logs
a day to enable him to fulfill his contract to supply logs to the timber
company and that the appellant was therefore aware that the performance of the
respondent’s timber supply contract depended on the performance of the his
log-hauling contract with him, at the rate of performance specified by the
former and agreed to by the latter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
trial the respondent gave evidence that the appellant had assured him before
the contract was entered into that his tractor was not only in good working
order for the purpose of hauling logs but that it could haul at least 30 logs
in a working day. In that evidence the respondent had the support of an
employee, the respondent’s second witness, who was his clerk and had been with
him to negotiate the hiring contract.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Further
evidence by the respondent’s timber foreman, the respondent’s first witness,
under whose supervision the log-hauling was carried out in the bush, showed
that the tractor did not work properly almost from the very commencement of the
hiring, with the tractor hauling about five, six or seven logs a day and a
total of 60 logs during a period of a little over a month.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant and his witnesses while agreeing that the tractor hauled logs at the
rate of ten, six or five logs a day blamed this low rate of production on the
reasons that some of the logs were “rotten” and that they had to go long
distances in some cases to get to the logs, reasons that were rejected by the
respondent’s foreman. The fact was however admitted that the tractor did break
down at least once and that this was due to a faulty clutch. The clutch was
found to be “completely worn out” after a period of gradual damage and that
fault had brought operations to a halt only a few days after the commencement
of the contract. According to the appellant’s witnesses, the tractor operated
for one period of ten days before the breakdown and then for another period of
fourteen days later. This the respondent denied.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Two
documents were tendered in evidence as exhibit A and exhibit 1. Of these two,
exhibit A appears to be a receipt for the payment of a deposit of N¢1,100.00 by
the respondent to the appellant at the agreed hiring rate of N¢80.00 per day.
That exhibit also contains “Regulations” concerning the conditions of hiring of
the tractor. Exhibit 1 is entitled<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">