DORMENYOR vs. JOHNSON MOTORS LTD. [1989]DLSC583

Date	1989-01-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLSC583

AMPIAH J.A.

N. B. AFOOM FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1989]DLSC583
																																						<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" >DORMENYOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>JOHNSON MOTORS LTD. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 145<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:
27 JANUARY
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">

N. B. AFOOM FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

S. A. X. TSEGAH 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">

AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>By his
writ of summons, the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and
severally general and special damages for:<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">“(a)
breach of contract to repair the plaintiff’s motor car Peugeot 504 Estate No.
GX 5709;<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">(b) Wrongful
detention of the plaintiff’s motor vehicle Peugeot 504 Estate No. GX 5709; and<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">(c) An
order for delivery up by the defendants to the plaintiff of the said vehicle.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants denied the plaintiff’s claim and counterclaimed for “. . . the sum
of ¢4,500 as storage charges from July 1980 to February 1981, and ¢150 per day
from March 1981 to the date of judgment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff is a business executive and managing director of B-Jones Enterprises
Ltd. The first defendant is a limited liability company and carries on business
of motor repairs, among other. The second defendant is the managing director of
the first defendant company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Some time
in June 1980 the plaintiff sent his vehicle No. GX 5709 to the defendant-
company for repairs. The defendant-company refused to repair the vehicle on the
ground that there had been no formal agreement for repairs of the vehicle. The
vehicle thus remained at the workshop of the defendant-company until some time
in February 1981. The plaintiff then wrote for the release of his vehicle to
him whereupon the defendants, before they would release it, demanded ¢4,500
being storage and risk charges. The plaintiff refused to pay these charges and
brought this action to court.<o:p></o:p>At the
close of the pleadings and on the evidence, the following main issues arose for
determination:<o:p></o:p>1. Whether
or not there was a contract for repairs between the plaintiff and the
defendants;<o:p></o:p>2. Whether
or not the defendants are in breach of the said contract, if any;<o:p></o:p>3. Whether
or not the defendants have wrongfully detained the plaintiff’s vehicle;<o:p></o:p>4. Whether
or not the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage as a result of the breach of
contract and the wrongful detention of the vehicle; and<o:p></o:p>5. Whether
or not the defendants are entitled to the sum of ¢4,500 and ¢150 per day from
March 1981 to the date of judgment as storage and risk fees.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span</main>