B.I.O. LIMITED. vs. DEGRAFT-AIDOO [1980]DLCA2099

Date	1980-03-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA2099

JIAGGE JA

FRANCOIS J.A.

ABBAN J.

EBOW DAWSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

ATTA ERSKINE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLCA2099
																																						<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" >B.I.O. LIMITED. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DEGRAFT-AIDOO <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] GLR 239<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:
10 MARCH 1980<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">

EBOW DAWSON FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

ATTA ERSKINE FOR 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">

JIAGGE, FRANCOIS JJ.A. AND ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>Abban J. delivered
the judgment of the court. The appeal is from the judgment of the High Court,
Sekondi, dated 27 July 1977. In 1974 the respondents through their managing
director, one Mr. Carlo, consulted the appellant who is a legal practitioner in
connection with the sale of caterpillar and its accessories to two gentlemen -
Kwame Appiagyei and Kwame Asante. The respondents who were timber inspectors
and agents were operating in the Takoradi area. The two gentlemen were also
carrying on business as timber contractors.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents intended to sell the caterpillar for ¢30,000 and the two gentlemen
wanted to buy it on credit. They deposited title deeds to the building of one
of them - Appiagyei - in Kumasi as a security for the payment of the agreed
purchase price. The respondents gave the said title deeds to the appellant with
instructions to prepare the necessary legal document to cover the transaction
between the respondents on one hand and Appiagyei and Asante on the other.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
obvious that the transaction was one of credit sale and the appellant for some
reasons felt it was not in the best interest of the respondents. He therefore
advised the respondents to insist on outright sale. The respondents were bent
on selling the caterpillar to Appiagyei and Asante on credit. So the
appellant’s advice did not seem to go down well with them. In the circumstances
the appellant again advised that the building in Kumasi, as described in the
title deeds, should be valued to make sure that it was an adequate security for
a debt of ¢30,000.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents having agreed to the latter advice, the appellant sought the
service of a valuer in Cape Coast. The valuer set to work and employed other
persons in Kumasi to assist him in the valuation exercise. The appellant in the
meantime made a draft of the proposed agreement, the final document to be
prepared on the receipt of the valuer’s report. But before the valuer completed
his work, the respondents informed the appellant that the two gentlemen had
indicated that they were no longer interested in the caterpillar and so they
had withdrawn from the transaction, and that the appellant should put an end to
the preparation of the agreement. The transaction having been called off, the
respondents requested the appellant to return to the respondents the title
deeds (which the respondents had earlier on given to the appellant) for onward
transmission to the said two gentlemen.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant did not take kindly to the request. He insisted that he should be
paid fees for the work he had so far done. He further demanded that the
respondents must pay the fees and the expenses of the valuer, and until the
respondents met those demands he would not release the title deeds to the
respondents. The respondents refused to pay any fees to the appellant and sued
the appellant for the return of the title deeds and for damages for their
detention. The learned trial judge entered judgment for the respondents and
awarded them ¢20,000 as general damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
against this judgment that the appellant has appealed. Several grounds of
appeal were filed. But counsel for the appellant argued ground 2 of the
additional grounds filed on 20 January 1982 as well as the supplementary
grounds filed on 3 February 1978. In ground 2 of the additional grounds it was
complained that the learned trial judge contradicted himself in law in holding
that the title deeds, the subject-matter of the action, did not belong to the
respondents and yet held that the respondents were entitled to maintain the
action and proceeded to award damages to the respondents.<o:p></o:p>Learned
counsel for the appellant contended that it was the owners of the</main>