GEORGIA HOTEL LIMITED vs. SILVER STAR AUTO LIMITED [2012]DLSC6410

Date	2012-12-04
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/34/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLSC6410

ANSAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

GBADEGBE J.S.C.

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR APPELLANT

FUI TSIKATA WITH MIKE DZAKU FOR RESPONDENT

[2012]DLSC6410
																																						<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" >GEORGIA HOTEL LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SILVER STAR AUTO LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/34/2012&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: 4TH DECEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ADUMUA-BOSSMAN
FOR 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">

FUI
TSIKATA WITH MIKE DZAKU FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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">

ANSAH J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ADINYIRA
(MRS) J.S.C., DOTSE J.S.C., GBADEGBE J.S.C., AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SOPHIA
ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC <o:p></o:p>In
October 2004 Hotel Georgia Limited, a limited liability company engaged in
hotel and hospitality industry in Kumasi and Accra, the
Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant herein, (hereinafter plaintiff company),
purchased for the use of its managing director, a brand new Mercedes Benz E240
Avant-garde at a cost of €58,500 from the Silver Star Limited, the sole dealer
of German-made Mercedes Benz vehicles in Ghana, the
Defendant/Appellant/Respondent herein (hereinafter defendant company)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In September 2006 the vehicle broke down at
Ejisu en route to Kumasi after minor repairs at the workshop of the defendant
company at Tema. The plaintiff company had the vehicle towed to Kumasi and
inspected by a private mechanic who declared the car engine defective. After
that the plaintiff company brought a claim against the defendant company
alleging that the vehicle suffered from latent defects. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff company claimed by its writ of summons filed on 15 February 2007: <o:p></o:p>1.
The replacement of Mercedes Benz E240 Avant-garde vehicle…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>2.
In the alternative, the payment of the full replacement value of a brand new Mercedes
Benz saloonE240 Avant-garde to the plaintiff by the defendant by reason of the
wrongful sale of the wrongful sale of the defective brand new vehicle to it. <o:p></o:p>3.
Loss of use. <o:p></o:p>4.
Costs including solicitors professional fees. <o:p></o:p>On
28 July the High Court delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiff company
for recovery of €58,500, interest at the prevailing bank rate from October 2006
to the date of payment, $10,000 for loss of use and costs of GH2,000. This
decision was reversed on appeal on 2 December 2010. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff company appeals on the grounds that: <o:p></o:p>a)
On the agreed evidence by the appellant as expressed in Exhibit CE1 the Court
of Appeal misinterpreted what constitutes a latent manufacturer's defect as it
applied to the brand new Mercedes Benz E240NAvante-garde the Appellant bought
from the respondent. The misinterpretation and misapplication of what
constitutes a latent defect has occasioned the Appellant a substantial
miscarriage of justice. <o:p></o:p>b)
The Court erred when it relied on suspicion and conjecture to find that the
fault on the car was caused by the Appellant's agent. <o:p></o:p>c)
The judgment is against the weight of evidence. <o:p></o:p>What
is a latent manufacturer's defect? <o:p></o:p>According
to Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition relied on by the trial judge, a hidden or
latent inherent defect is defined as 'a product imperfection that is not
discoverable by reasonable inspection" A manufacturing defect is defined
as an "imperfection in a product that departs from its intended
design." According to the High Court judgment, the imperfection must thus
exist at the delivery of the product. The Court took into account the implied
fitness for which the vehicle was intended as well. Thus, a new vehicle should
be free from defects at the time it is delivered from seller to buyer. <o:p></o:p>The
Court of Appeal considered what Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defines a
latent defect as a "hidden or concealed defect, one which could not be
discovered by reasonable or customary observation or inspection; one not
apparent on the face of the goods, product or document… Defect which the owner
has no knowledge or which the owner has no knowledge of1 as held in Bichl VRS
Poinier;"2 The Appeals Court referred to the case of US vs. Lembke Const
Co. Inc, CA3 ; where the term was described as "one which cannot be
discovered by observation or inspection made with ordinary care.4 <o:p></o:p>