YOUNG TRADING AGENCIES vs. STAVELEY & CO., LTD. [1977]DLCA1440

Date	1977-07-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1440

AMISSAH JA

ARCHER JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A

S. ANNANCY FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

[1977]DLCA1440
																																						<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" >YOUNG TRADING AGENCIES <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>STAVELEY &amp; CO., LTD. <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977]1 GLR 281<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:
6 JULY 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">

S. ANNANCY FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF 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">

AMISSAH, ARCHER AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH
JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
court was denied the benefit of useful arguments from the respondents when this
appeal was called on for hearing. The respondents, though amply notified of the
pendency, and fully aware of the actual hearing of this petition, never deemed
it necessary to appear, either by themselves, or else by counsel, to respond
thereto. They filed no declaration in writing and they submitted no written
arguments to the court, in accordance with rules 22 and 24 of the Court of
Appeal Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218). We therefore heard arguments from the appellants
only.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs-appellants, a trading concern in Accra, and owners of a Fargo bus
registered as GG 2314, sent that vehicle to the defendants-respondents, a motor
sales and servicing establishment, also in Accra, for repair. The defendants
received the Fargo bus, valued at N¢3,500.00, and agreed to carry out repairs
thereon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As the
plaintiffs (hereinafter designated the appellants) tell it, the vehicle was
sent to the defendants (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) some time
in August 1968. A few months later (in March of the following year, 1969), when
the appellants went to the garage to collect their bus in exercise of their
right to its immediate possession, and to settle the repair bill on it, the
respondents were unable to deliver the vehicle to them. And when several
subsequent attempts at its recovery failed to produce that vehicle, proceedings
were consequently instituted by the appellants who complained in their writ 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">“(a) The
plaintiffs’ claim is against the defendants for the return of their Fargo bus
No. GG 2314 or its value which said vehicle the plaintiffs sent to the
defendants and which the defendants have refused to release to the plaintiffs
in spite of repeated demands.<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">“(b)
N¢20.00 per day for loss of use from 18 April 1969 to date of judgment.”<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 answer
to that averment the respondents admitted having received, kept and repaired
the vehicle. But they also roundly disclaimed liability for the non-delivery-up
of the bus, on the ground that:<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) By a
formal decree of the Grade I District Court, Accra, the workshop manager, of
the defendants company was prohibited from giving over the said bus to F.E.
Young. “(8) In compliance with the said order of the court, the defendants were
requested by the deputy sheriff to surrender and the defendants did surrender
the said bus to the deputy sheriff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents further contended that since the appellants were, at all material
times, fully aware of the facts specifically alleged in defence, their action
was misconceived, and they could not properly be entitled to the reliefs they
sought by their writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Replying
to these points of substance the appellants firstly by paragraph (6) denied
“knowledge of any seizure of its Fargo bus No. GG 2314 by the deputy sheriff”;
and then by paragraph (7) answered: “that the defendants could not have released
the said Fargo bus to the deputy sheriff without first giving notice of it to
the plaintiffs and such act of the defendants in surrendering the Fargo bus No.
GG 2</main>