RHODERLINE BAAFOUR GYIMAH vs. MODERN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE [2012]DLHC12140

Date	2012-03-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTR 52/09
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC12140

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

BAAFOUR GYIMAH FOR PLAINTIFF

STEVEN BATSE FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2012]DLHC12140
																																						<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" >RHODERLINE BAAFOUR GYIMAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MODERN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FTR 52/09&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: 14TH&nbsp;MARCH 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>By
a writ of summons issued at the instance of plaintiff against the defendant on
the 3rd July 2009, the plaintiff claims the following:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
declaration that on a true construction of Act 137 (1) @ there is an implied
warranty as tothe quality or fitness for Kyron car bought from the defendant
and that the warranty has been breached.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order for the revocation of the contract of sale in respect of the Kyron car
bought or alternatively for damages.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order for the refund of monies spent in repairing the defects which repairs
were undertaken by the defendant.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest
on the monies refunded in 2 above from date of judgment to date of payment.<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Loss
of use for 20 days GH¢30 per day.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Cost.<o:p></o:p>There
is much common ground between the parties on the facts which triggered this
action. The plaintiff bought a 4 X 4 Kyron car from the defendant company on
the 12th day of February 2008. The parties are however diverge on
the quality and performance of the said vehicle. The defendant company
vehemently denies, as alleged by the plaintiff that the cars clutch system and
the defects as argued are all indications that, the said car has some latent
defects which the plaintiff was never informed and or made aware of.<o:p></o:p>