ISSIFU MARTIN SIMPRIMRI vs. AGNES NAMASAM AND OTHERS [2010]DLCA3077

Date	2010-04-25
Suit No.	NO: HI/135/08
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA3077

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F. G. KORBIEH J. A.

IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS) J. A.

MR. A. A. LUGUTERAH ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. MUJEEB RAHMAN ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONSENT

[2010]DLCA3077
																																						<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" >ISSIFU MARTIN SIMPRIMRI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AGNES NAMASAM AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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">

NO: HI/135/08&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Date:
25TH APRIL, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
A. A. LUGUTERAH ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MARIAMA
OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING), F. G. KORBIEH J. A., IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS) J. A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>IRENE C. DANQUAH J. A<o:p></o:p>This
appeal arises from the ruling of the High Court, Tamale, dated 20th
day of March, 2008, in which judgment in default was entered against the
plaintiff for failing to file a defence to the 1st defendant’s
counter claim within time. The court further awarded cost of GH¢500.00 against
the plaintiff by consent.<o:p></o:p>The
case of the plaintiff as gathered from his pleadings is that sometime in
January, 2006, he borrowed the sum of ¢60,000,000.00 from the 1st
defendant to add to his money to buy a Toyota Tipper truck No. NR 1289 A. Subsequently,
in March the same year, the 1st defendant secured a contract to be
executed at a village called Gbanyamli. 1st defendant therefore
hired the plaintiff’s truck to carry sand, gravel etc in order to perform the
contract. It was agreed that the hiring price was ¢600,000.00 per day but since
the 1st defendant complained that she had not been paid for the
contract, it was further agreed that instead of the 1st defendant
paying the hiring fee of ¢600,000.00 per day she should use the tipper truck
for her contract work until the amount of ¢60,000,000.00 borrowed from her was
liquidated. According to the plaintiff, the truck was driven to the contract
site by his spare driver but after the close of the first day’s work, the 1st
defendant requested him to leave the truck at the site instead of driving it
back to town in order to conserve fuel. Although 1st defendant
assured the driver that he would be picked by her car to the site the next day,
she did not turn up. However, when the plaintiff drove his driver on his
motorbike to the site, he realized that the 1st defendant had put
another driver in charge of his truck. Subsequent efforts to locate and
retrieve the tipper truck from the 1st defendant failed. On a tip
off, the plaintiff, accompanied by another person, went to one Bawa, a
motorcycle mechanics, with the intension to take back the truck. The said Bawa
telephoned the 3rd defendant who spoke directly&nbsp; to the plaintiff that the truck would only be
returned to the plaintiff on condition that he produced the amount of
¢62,000,000.00 he owed the 1st defendant. The 3rd
defendant threatened to have the plaintiff arrested should he fail to produce
the aforesaid amount.<o:p></o:p>On
the basis of these facts, the plaintiff on 16th November, 2007,
issued a writ of summon indorsed with the following reliefs against the
defendants:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in;
mso-text-indent-alt:-9.0pt;mso-list:l4 level3 lfo5">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“¢102,000,000.00 (one hundred and two million
cedis) being accumulated arrears of the hire of plaintiff’s tipper truck No.
1289 A at ¢600,000.00 per day from March 2006.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The hire of plaintiff’s tipper truck from 1st
December, 2006 at ¢600,000.00 or until the earlier release of the said Tipper
Truck No. NR 1289A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
ii</main>