EMMANUEL YAW OWUSU vs. KUMI ADU TUTU AMANKWAA [2013]DLCA3128

Date	2013-01-25
Suit No.	APPEAL NO. H1/88/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA3128

E. K. AYEBI JA [PRESIDING]

IRENE C. DANQUAH JA

I. O. TANKO AMADU JA

WILLIAM O. ODURO FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

ERIC BOAMAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

[2013]DLCA3128
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL YAW OWUSU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KUMI ADU TUTU AMANKWAA<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">

APPEAL NO.
H1/88/2012&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 25TH JANUARY 2013<o:p></o:p>

ERIC
BOAMAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>I.
O. TANKO AMADU JA<o:p></o:p>1. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Plaintiff/Appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; entered into an agreement with the
Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) on the 6th
day of February 2008 for the supply by the Appellant of a KORD printing machine
at an agreed purchase price of €15,000.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>2. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Under
the sale and purchase agreement tendered in evidence as Exhibit ‘A’ the
Respondent was to make a part payment of €7,500 which represented 50% of the
total purchase price and the balance payable upon delivery of the machine.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The parties to the agreement had further endorsed
on Exhibit ‘A’ as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“PROMISE TO
PAY BALANCE – After 6 months when delivery of the machine has
been made.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>CONDITIONS: If the
machine is undelivered after 6 months from date, the part payment of 7,500
Euros made by the purchaser should be refunded to him by the vendor”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
agreement was dated 6th February 2008.<o:p></o:p>3. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; According
to the Appellant he delivered the printing machine on or around September 2008
after which the Respondent paid the Ghana Cedis equivalent of €4768 Euros and
had refused to pay the outstanding balance of 2,732 Euros hence the Appellant’s
action at the trial court for recovery of the said sum with interest thereon.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>4. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
Respondent contested Appellant’s claim and asserted that the Appellant delivered
the machine on 19/3/2008. The Respondent further contended that the machine
delivered by the Appellant was defective in many ways and that same had never
worked since he took delivery and had spent a total of 4,636.27 Euros on the
repairs of the machine only. The Respondent asserted further that having spent
the sum of 16,905,74 Euros representing purchase price and cost of repairs
carried out on the machine which sum is far in excess of the outstanding
balance claimed by the Appellant, it is the Appellant who is rather indebted to
the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>