ATADI vs. LADZEKPO [1980]DLCA1565

Date	1980-01-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1565

CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C

EDUSEI JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPELLANT.

GIKUNOO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLCA1565
																																						<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" >ATADI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>LADZEKPO<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 218<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:
29
JANUARY 1981<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">

E. D. KOM 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">

CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C., EDUSEI AND
EDWARD WIREDU JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.A.<o:p></o:p>The facts
of this case which have provoked the present appeal may be briefly stated as
follows: The defendant-appellant, hereafter referred to as the appellant, was
prior to the events giving rise to this action the owner of vehicle No. WE
6604. The evidence shows that he originally employed the plaintiff-respondent,
also hereafter referred to simply as the respondent, as the driver of the said
vehicle. In the course of his relationship, the appellant agreed with the
respondent for the sale of the vehicle to him (the respondent) under what has
come to be called “work and pay” basis in local parlance. A written agreement
to this effect was executed between them. This agreement was tendered in
evidence as exhibit 1.<o:p></o:p>Under
exhibit 1 two conditions were set down which entitled the seizure of the
vehicle. These were contained in clauses 5 and 6 which respectively read:<o:p></o:p>“5. The
vendee has agreed that if he fails to pay the said monthly instalment of ¢83.69
(Eighty-three cedis sixty-nine pesewas) for any two consecutive months the
vendor has the right, to seize the said Land Rover vehicle or can cause the
vehicle to be seized by any person upon the vendor’s written authority. 6. The
vendee agreed that any balance due unpaid by the end of December 1971 will be
paid in block; at the same time failure which the vendor should seize the said
vehicle or cause the vehicle to be seized by any person upon a written
authority by the vendor till such time that the amount is paid in full.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The event
which immediately sparked off the present action was the seizure of the vehicle
by the appellant. The date of the seizure became the bone of contention between
the parties. The respondent claiming that the seizure was on 20 May 1971 whilst
the appellant contended that the seizure was on 26 July 1971 when the
respondent had been in arrears of instalments for two months in breach of
clause 5 of exhibit 1.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
simple issue of fact raised for determination was on which of the two rival
dates the vehicle was seized ? If it was seized on 20 May 1971 as was contended
by the respondent then his case is made out and he will be entitled to succeed
against the appellant otherwise his action fails.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned trial circuit judge after reviewing the case for parties found in
favour of the respondent and rejected the appellant’s claim that the seizure
was on 26 July 1971 and proceeded to enter judgment in his favour and granted
him the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“In the
result the court finds that the special damages proved are as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-indent:2.6pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i) ¢378
(as evidenced by exhibit A); (ii) ¢142.55 (being expenses proved to have been
incurred on repairs on the vehicle); (iii) ¢360 (being total amount paid as
insurance premiums as per exhibits 1, 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D); and (iv) ¢2,400
(being loss of earnings from 20 May 1971 to date of judgment, i.e. 10 July 1975
a total of approximately two years or 24 months at ¢100 per month). These give
a grand total of ¢3,280.55. Judgment is accordingly entered for the plaintiff
in the sum of ¢3,280.55 it being special damages. I award ¢500 being general
damages for wrongful seizure, detention and conversion of Land Rover No. WE
6604 with ¢300 costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>