TABURY vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [1979]DLHC1117

Date	1979-02-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1117

SARKODEE J.

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

J. EBOW DAWSON FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLHC1117
																																						<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" >TABURY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 90<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:
22 FEBUARY 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

J. EBOW DAWSON 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 1.0pt 0in">

SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>By his
writ as amended the plaintiff claims against the defendants recovery of 339
bags of salted fish or their value, and damages for wrongfully seizing or
causing the said fish to be seized. The defendants have refused to release the
said fish to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiff also
claims damages for unlawful arrest and wrongful imprisonment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is a fish dealer and is based in Dakar, Senegal. The defendants, a
financial institution in Ghana, employed one Felix Oppong Peprah, the manager
of Ghana Commercial Bank, Sekondi, as their agent or servant. Some time before
1971 the plaintiff and one Ekua Manang, a Sekondi fish dealer, met in Dakar
where it appears the plaintiff appointed her his agent in Ghana and in whose
house he stayed whenever the plaintiff was in Ghana. Ekua Manang introduced to
the plaintiff her sister, the third plaintiff witness, Ama Atta, as the person
who would receive all consignment of fish which the plaintiff would send to
Ghana as Ekua Manang was very often travelling. Following the meeting in Dakar,
Ekua Manang became the customer of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff sent fish
to Ghana all documents were in the name of Ama Atta. The plaintiff would then
travel to Ghana and would accompany Ama Atta to the harbour to take delivery of
the fish.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
September 1976 the plaintiff brought into Ghana 1,108 bags of salted fish
commonly called kako consigned to Nana Amena also called Ama Atta. As was the
arrangement the plaintiff and Ama Atta took delivery of the fish which the
plaintiff later distributed to his customers as follows: 550 bags to Ekua
Manang, 400 bags to a Madam Diego and the remainder to other customers. It
appears Madam Diego was unable to pay for all the fish allotted to her and so
after one month the plaintiff collected 339 bags of the fish from her. He kept
this in a warehouse owned by Ekua Manang but which she shared with the
plaintiff. The 339 bags of fish from Madam Diego were stored in the warehouse.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Ama Atta
borrowed money from the defendant bank which she was unable to repay. The
plaintiff was not a customer of the bank and did not owe the bank any money. On
8 October 1976 whilst the plaintiff was taking delivery of the fish from Madam
Diego he was arrested by armed soldiers led by a Major Enningful of the Second
Battalion of Infantry, Apremdu, near Takoradi. Before the arrest, Major
Enningful told the plaintiff that he had instructions to arrest all those who
owed the bank. The arrest and detention of the plaintiff was at the instance of
the bank manager who had allowed Ama Atta overdraft facilities, without prior
approval. The soldiers arrested the plaintiff, Ama Atta and Ekua Manang and
took them first to the manager’s office where a discussion took place as to how
Ama Atta was going to repay the loan. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the two
women were taken to the warehouse where the soldiers seized the fish from Madam
Diego which was then being received into the warehouse. The plaintiff checked
the stock with Madam Diego’s storekeeper in the presence of the manager, the
major and the four armed soldiers with him, and he got 339 bags of fish. Ama
Atta and Ekua Manang were also present. The manager then caused the warehouse
to be locked adding a padlock of his own. The keys were then given to the
major. The plaintiff and the two women were taken to the barracks in a military
land rover.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants admit that they caused the warehouse to be locked but say that the
fish in it including those sent there later belonged to Ama Atta and her
sister, customers who owed the bank, and not to the plaintiff. They say further
that because of the behaviour of Ama Atta and her sister they decided in
accordance with banking practice to supervise the sale of the fish so as to
rec</main>