TAWIAH vs. GHANA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [1988]DLSC687

Date	1988-07-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC687

PIESARE AG. J.

B. K. OPPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MRS. AYIM (WITH MRS. GAISIE) FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1988]DLSC687
																																						<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" >TAWIAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GHANA CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 452<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:
8
JULY 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">

B. K. OPPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

MRS. AYIM (WITH MRS. GAISIE) 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 0in 0in">

PIESARE AG. J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF PIESARE AG. J.<o:p></o:p>By the
amended writ, the plaintiff is claiming against the defendants jointly and
severally:<o:p></o:p>“1. An
order for recovery of the first defendant’s storage tank sold to the plaintiff
at a public auction sale conducted on 30 July 1984 which the first defendant
has refused to release or deliver to the plaintiff despite repeated demands by
the plaintiff. 2. Damages for detinue, in the alternative; damages for breach
of contract. 3. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from
interfering with the storage tank.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
suit, most of the material facts are not in dispute. The first defendant, the
Civil Aviation Authority, was the owner of a storage tank of about 20,000
gallons capacity. Some time before July 1984 they decided to sell this storage
tank as an unserviceable store item. By the letter dated 16 April 1984 the
Ministry of Finance approved of the disposal of that storage tank by auction
sale. The first defendant therefore contacted an auctioneer, and the intended
sale by public auction of that specific storage tank was advertised in the
Peoples Daily Graphic and the auction was scheduled for 30 July 1984.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
said 30 July 1984 over 50 bidders assembled at the place scheduled for the
auction; bids were made; the plaintiff turned out to be the highest bidder, and
the storage tank was knocked down to him, for ¢16,000. The plaintiff thereupon
paid this amount, and was issued with a receipt, exhibit A, dated 30 July 1984.
The case of the plaintiff was that he did not immediately take delivery of the
storage tank. Four days later, he called on the first defendants with the view
to taking delivery of the tank but the first defendant refused to deliver it to
him. It was the plaintiff’s case that the managing director of the first
defendants had then directed that the tank should not be delivered to him. The
plaintiff testified that when he called in a second time and attempted to take
delivery of the tank, he was driven away by the managing director with a threat
to spill out his blood if he would not get away. Upon the instructions of the
plaintiff therefore, the plaintiff’s solicitor, Mr. B. K. Oppong, wrote to the
first defendant, and it appears that the response to this was the first
defendant’s letter, exhibit B, dated 4 September 1984. For clarity of judgment,
I will here quote the relevant portions of this letter captioned “Disposal of
Unserviceable Storage Tank” addressed to the auctioneer and copied to the
plaintiff:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“I return herewith the cheque No. ADB 4/5
602115 drawn on account No. 00448 together with the statement of account which
you presented to this department as a result of the public auction held on 30
July 1984. This is as a result of a representation made for and on behalf of
the Pantang Hospital by the Ministry of Health to rehabilitate this tank to
solve the water problem at the above hospital. Since this request is a national
affair, the Director of Civil Aviation has decided to nullify the auction sale
and has accordingly instructed that the tank be given to the Pantang Hospital
on humanitarian grounds. By a copy of this letter Mr. Tawiah of Texaco Filling
Station, Odorkor, Accra who purchased the tank is being informed to contact you
for the refund of his money. Any inconvenience caused is deeply regretted.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff therefore took this action; and in this court the defence is
substantially the same as pronounced in the letter, exhibit B, earlier quoted
in this judgment, i.e. that after the auction sale the first defendant realised
that the Pantang Hospital had requested for that tank and, as the statement of
defence says, since the request was of national importance the managing
director of the first defendant had no option but to nullify the said public
auction sale. And the question now is whether the managing director can lawfully
nullify the said public auction sale for the benefit of the Pantang Hospital.
We shall come to this issue in due course.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>