PETER ANKOMAH vs. CITY INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [2012]DLSC2680

Date	2012-05-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC2680

DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

DOTSE JSC

BONNIE JSC

BAMFO (MRS) JSC

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APELLANT.

KWAKU ANSA- ASARE FOR THE REPONDENT.

[2012]DLSC2680
																																						<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" >PETER ANKOMAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CITY INVESTMENT COMPANY
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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. J4/13/2011&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH MAY, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APELLANT.<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">

KWAKU
ANSA- ASARE FOR THE REPONDENT.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

DATE-BAH
JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH JSC, DOTSE JSC, BONNIE JSC,BAMFO (MRS) JSC <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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>DOTSE
JSC: <o:p></o:p>The facts in this appeal
admit of no controversy whatsoever. The wife of the plaintiff/appellant/appellant,
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, defaulted in the repayment of loans
he took from the defendants/respondents/respondent hereinafter referred to as
the defendant. As a result of this default, the defendants instituted action
against the wife of the plaintiff and obtained judgment against her. <o:p></o:p>It was in the course of
the execution of the judgment that the defendants caused the Deputy Sheriff to
attach items which belonged to the plaintiff from their matrimonial home. The
items of property seized from the plaintiff were a Mitsubishi car and a deep
freezer. Following the failure of the defendants to return the said items to
the plaintiff upon repeated demands, the plaintiff instituted an action in the
High Court against the defendants. In view of the issues raised in this appeal,
which hinged on what constitutes General and Special damages, it is considered
worthwhile to produce in detail the entire reliefs that the plaintiff claimed
against the defendants.<o:p></o:p>“Delivery up of Mitsubishi Saloon car
with registration number GR 9185 G unlawfully caused by the defendants to be
seized by the Sheriff or the value of the said car and damages for its
detention. Delivery up of one refrigerator unlawfully caused by the defendants
to be seized by the Sheriff on execution or the value thereof and damages for its detention.”<o:p></o:p>In a supporting statement
of claim, the plaintiff provided the particulars of damages in paragraph 4 of
the statement of claim as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The plaintiff has since the seizure
of the car and the refrigerator demanded their return but the defendants have
refused to cause their return or delivery up with the consequence that the
plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.<o:p></o:p>Particulars of Damage<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Loss of use of the said car at ¢250,00 per day from 8th
September 1997 and continuing<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost of putting the vehicle in a good
and road worthy condition.<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Loss of use of the said refrigerator at
¢50,000.00 per day from 8th September 1997 and continuing<o:p></o:p>(iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost of repair<o:p></o:p>And the plaintiff claims <o:p></o:p>An order for the delivery up of the
said Mitsubishi Car No. GR 9185 G and the refrigerator, or payment of their
respective values”.<o:p></o:p>HIGH
COURT DECISION<o:p></o:p>After protracted and
delayed proceedings, the trial High Court delivered judgment in favour of the
plaintiff as follows:<o:p></o:p>“I now proceed to deal with damages.
Plaintiff told the court that he purchased the vehicle at an amount of ¢65
million he also said it costs him ¢250,000.00 a day to secure alternative means
of transport. He told the court that he is a trader. He gave evidence on
24/5/2000. I must say that despite the fact that no contrary evidence was
offered, I find that figure to be inflated and quite excessive. I have formed
this opinion because plaintiff went on to give the value of the seized
refrigerator as ¢25 million. If plaintiff had to use al</main>