NANEVIE vs. CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND PREVENTIVE SERVICE AND OTHERS [2004]DLCA1000

Date	2004-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA1000

TWUMASI JA

OWUSU-ANSAH JA

ANIM JA

W ANTHONIO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

L F YANKSON (WITH HIM GODSON ATTOH) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

[2004]DLCA1000
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">NANEVIE<o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND PREVENTIVE SERVICE AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 61<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 26 March 2004<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>W
ANTHONIO FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

L F
YANKSON (WITH HIM GODSON ATTOH) FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

TWUMASI,
OWUSU-ANSAH AND ANIM JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Twumasi JA
delivered the unanimous decision of the court. On 30 November 1996 a Togolese
national, the respondent herein, brought into Ghana a newly acquired Mercedes
Benz car valued at DM43,000. Intent to stay in the country for a while, he duly
applied for and obtained a three-month licence from the Customs, Excise and
Preventive Service of Ghana (hereinafter referred to as CEPS).<o:p></o:p>The
respondent instituted legal proceedings against CEPS and two others on the
grounds stated in his statement of claim that, while the three-month licence
was still valid, CEPS seized the vehicle and sold it to a Lieutenant Colonel
who in turn sold it at a higher price to another person. According to the
respondent, CEPS offered him terms of settlement whereby CEPS agreed that he
should repair a damaged Toyota Lexus saloon car and keep it in replacement of
the Mercedes Benz car. He said he duly implemented the arrangement, yet CEPS
refused to release the repaired car to him and also failed to settle the cost
of repairs.<o:p></o:p>The
defence put up by the appellants was that the respondent breached a condition
under the three-month licence which forbade him from permitting a third person
to drive the said Mercedes Benz car and thereby rendered it liable for forfeiture
to the State.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case further show that the settlement just referred to was
promoted by the trial court upon an application made on behalf of the
respondent by his counsel to the court which obliged him the required leave to
proceed and that this had occurred in the course of the proceedings when the
case was ripe for hearing. According to other facts gathered from the record of
appeal, when it became clear that CEPS had turned a deaf ear to the demands of
the respondent to release the Toyota Lexus saloon car and to pay him the
expenses incurred in its repair, his counsel applied to the court to fix a date
for hearing. Upon the orders of the court, hearing notices were served upon
CEPS to defend the claim but they would not bother to attend court. The hearing
therefore commenced without CEPS and judgment was entered in favour of the
respondent.<o:p></o:p>The
original indorsement on the writ of summons was as follows:<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)
That the seizure of Mercedes Benz 190D with registration No RT 8933 on 28
January 1997 was unlawful. <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)
Failure to release the said vehicle to the plaintiff amounts to conversion. <o:p></o:p>