YIRENKYI vs. TORMEKPEY [1988]DLCA816

Date	1988-04-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLCA816

ABBAN J.S.C.

OSEI-HWERE JA

AMPIAH J.A

FRANK SAWYERR FOR THE APPELLANT.

ANYADI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLCA816
																																						<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" >YIRENKYI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TORMEKPEY <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 516<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 21
APRIL 1988<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">

FRANK SAWYERR 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">

ABBAN J.S.C., OSEI-HWERE AND AMPIAH
JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Osei-Hwere
J.A. delivered the first judgment at the invitation of Abban J.S.C. The
plaintiff’s writ sued for the refund of the following amounts by the defendant:<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">“1
¢157,000 being the cost of one Toyota truck paid by the plaintiff to the
defendant.<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">2 ¢56,860
being the cost of repairs carried out by the plaintiff on the said truck at the
request of the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
addition he sued for damages for loss of use of the said vehicle and damages
for breach of contract of sale. The plaintiff is himself a businessman and the
defendant a motor vehicles dealer. It was agreed in the pleadings that on or
about 18 May 1980 the plaintiff bought from the defendant one Toyota truck No.
AK 5697 at a price of ¢157,000 for which the defendant issued his receipt
against the purchase.<o:p></o:p>It was
averred in the accompanying statement of claim of the plaintiff that upon
delivery of the truck it was discovered that contrary to the warranty given by
the defendant the said truck was not roadworthy and that it needed substantial
repairs on it—see paragraph<o:p></o:p>(4). the
averments continued:<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">“5 To
avoid a police charge against the defendant for fraud and misrepresentation,
the plaintiff was authorised to effect repairs on the truck against repayment
by the defendant. <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">6.
Accordingly the plaintiff spent in all the sum of ¢56,860 in rehabilitating the
said truck. <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.
Despite repeated demands, the defendant has refused to pay back the said sum of
¢56,860 to the plaintiff. <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">8. The
plaintiff says, he has not been able to use the said truck because the
defendant has still not effected transfer of the vehicle in his name despite
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">9. The
plaintiff says that he has thus suffered substantial material damage and loss
as a result of the defendant’s breach of the contract of sale.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant essayed to rock the foundation of the plaintiff‘s claim by the
following matters in his defence:<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">“2 The
defendant denies paragraph 4 of the statement of claim. 3. In further reply to
paragraph 4, the defendant says that before the plaintiff bought the vehicle he
brought his own choice of mechanics who thoroughly examined the said vehicle
and after being satisfied of its roadworthiness the plaintiff arranged and met
the defendant at Somanya where he paid the sum of ¢157,000 to the defendant for
the purchase of the truck. 4. In further reply aforesaid the defendant says he
never gave any warranty expre</main>