THE PROPRIETOR; MOK BEER BAR vs. GADA [1987]DLHC1215

Date	1987-03-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1215

AGYEPONG J.

QUANSAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

TSIKATA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1987]DLHC1215
																																						<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" >THE PROPRIETOR; MOK BEER BAR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GADA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 35<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:
17 MARCH 1978<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">

QUANSAH 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AGYEPONG J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant is the proprietor of a beer bar, called Mok, at Zongo Lane, Accra.
The case of the respondent in the court below was that on 18 December 1974, he
went to the appellant’s beer bar and purchased two bottles of locally made
whisky from the appellant. According to the respondent, he bought the whisky in
the presence of the appellant’s wife. The respondent paid for the whisky. He
appealed to the appellant to reserve the two bottles of whisky for him until he
came for them. When the respondent went to collect the bottles of whisky, the
appellant told him that he had sold them to another customer and collected the
proceeds thereof in addition to the purchase price already paid by the
respondent for the two bottles of whisky.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent took action against the appellant in the court below the outcome
whereof was that the appellant paid ¢11.00 the cost of the bottles of whisky
and ¢2.00 court fee to the respondent: but no costs. The action which provoked
the appeal was subsequently brought in the same court by the respondent to
claim ¢1,000.00 damages for breach of contract of sale.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The basis
of the respondent’s claim for damages was that “the drinks were ordered through
me for a very good friend of mine called Kofi Braku.” As the respondent could
not fulfil his promise of supplying the drinks to his said friend, following
the breach of contract, Kofi Braku said he would not trust the respondent,
consequently the respondent had become dishonest in the eyes of that friend,
and had been disgraced before that friend. It appeared from cross-examination
of the respondent, however, that he bought the drinks on 11 December 1974, and
came to collect them from the appellant on 23 December 1974.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
support of the respondent’s claim for damages, he, as plaintiff called Kofi
Braku as his first witness. Braku, a poultry farmer at Gomoa Ekwamkrom, said by
failing to supply him with the drinks, the respondent had disappointed him
during Christmas 1974, for a party which he Braku wanted to hold for people on
his farm could not come on because of the absence of the drinks. Braku
therefore refused to see the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
close of the respondent’s case, learned counsel for the appellant in the
district court, Mr. Amofa, made a submission that there was no case for the
appellant to answer. The contention of Mr. Amofa was that the agreement of the
appellant to keep the drink for the respondent was not part of the contract of
sale of the drinks; consequently there could be no breach of that contract of
sale. The district court, presided over by his worship Mr. S. A. Brobbey,
overruled the submission of Mr. Amofa, holding that the agreement of the
appellant to keep the two bottles of whisky for the respondent was part of the
contract of sale and therefore the appellant, in failing to deliver them when
the respondent called for them, was in breach of that contract of sale.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned magistrate then proceeded to deliver judgment in favour of the
respondent, awarding ¢300.00 damages and ¢40.00 costs against the appellant, on
the ground that as a result of the appellant’s breach of contract, the
respondent’s reputation had been lowered in the estimation of Braku.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>