HOTEL GEORGIA LTD vs. SILVER STAR AUTO LTD [2010]DLCA3185

Date	2010-12-02
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/127/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA3185

QUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING)

OFOE J.A.

ACQUAYE J.A.

MR. AURELIUS AWUKU FOR PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

MRS. DAAD AKWASI FOR DEFENDANT / APPELLANT

[2010]DLCA3185
																																						<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" >HOTEL
GEORGIA LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SILVER STAR AUTO LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/127/2010&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: 2ND DECEMBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR.
AURELIUS AWUKU FOR PLAINTIFF / 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">

MRS.
DAAD AKWASI FOR DEFENDANT / 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 1.0pt 0in">

QUAYE
J.A. (PRESIDING), OFOE J.A., ACQUAYE J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&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; <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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Quaye, J. A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
undisputed facts of this case are that upon an order from the respondents, in
May 2004, the appellants sold, and the respondents took delivery of, what was
purported to be one brand new Mercedes Benz E240 Avant-garde vehicle on 1st
October 2004. The respondent had meanwhile paid the purchase price of £58.500
(Fifty-eight Thousand Five Hundred Euros) in full to the appellants by 29th
September 2004. After the respondents had taken delivery of the vehicle
aforesaid, there was a hiatus in communication between the parties extending
from the date of delivery until 8th March 2006 when the respondents presented
the vehicle to the appellants to repair damages resulting from an accident. In
all of its life, the vehicle was sent to the appellant's workshop on three
occasions. The second visit was on 8th June 2006, while the third and last
visit was on 14th September 2006. Just over one week after the last visit, the
car was being driven to Kumasi and while it was approaching Ejisu, the driver
(who did not testify in the trial court), and the 2nd witness for the plaintiff
(PW2), being the only persons in the car, observed that the car was no longer
moving properly. On reaching Ejisu therefore, they parked the car at a Petrol
Filling Station. On the following day, 23rd September 2006, the car was towed
from Ejisu to Kumasi where it was taken to the residence of the respondents'
managing director. On 15th February 2007 the respondents, as plaintiff's filed
a writ of summons in the High Court to make claims against the defendants (now
appellants). The relief sought in the action was:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:38.8pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">1. The
replacement of Mercedes Benz Saloon<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:38.8pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.7pt;mso-pagination:none;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">E240
Avant-garde vehicle with chassis number WDB2110611A 655330 and registered as
number GW 7154W, with a brand new one, by reason of the latent defect in the
said vehicle which the Plaintiff bought from the Defendant in October 2004.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:38.8pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">2. In the
alternative, the payment of thefull replacement value of a brand new
Mercedes-Benz Saloon E240 Avant-garde to the plaintiff by the Defendant by
reason of the wrongful sale of the defective brand new vehicle to it.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:38.8pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">3. Loss of
use.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:38.8pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">4.Costs
including solicitors professional fees.<o:p></o:p>The case
was heard in the High Court where the plaintiff (now respondent) led evidence
through three witnesses. The defendant/appellant called only one witness. The
court on its part called a witness. At the end thereof, the learned trial judge
made very relevant findings of fact some of which favoured the plaintiff
/respondent, or the defendant appellant as the circumstances dictated. Final
judgment however went in favour of the plaintiff. The dissatisfied and
aggrieved defendant, in consequence, filed the appeal herein, the grounds of
which are:<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. That the learned trial judge erred in holding
that the Respondent rejected the vehicle within a reasonable time.<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. That the learned trial judge erred in law in
holding that the issuance of the writ of summons amounted to a rejection of the
vehicle.<o:p></o:p>