POWER PLUS GROUP PTE LTD. vs. B & P IMPEX LTD AND REDSEA MARITIME SERVICES LTD. [2016]DLHC11583

Date	2016-04-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/227/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11583

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

AUDREY TWUM FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT

YAW OPOKU ADDO APPEARS FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

JOHN FREDERICK AGUDETSE HOLDING BRIEF FOR

CHARLES ZWENNES FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC11583
																																						<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" >POWER PLUS GROUP PTE LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>B &amp; P IMPEX LTD AND REDSEA MARITIME SERVICES LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. RPC/227/2015&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; DATA: 26TH APRIL 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AUDREY
TWUM FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT<o:p></o:p>YAW
OPOKU ADDO APPEARS FOR 1ST DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>JOHN
FREDERICK AGUDETSE HOLDING BRIEF FOR&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;">

CHARLES
ZWENNES FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:59.05pt;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
Plaintiff/Applicant prays this Court for an order for the seizure, detention
and preservation of the Power Plus Crane, which the Applicant describes as the
subject matter of the suit and which according to the Applicant has been hired
out by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant on a contract of hire.&nbsp; The 2nd Defendant, though it admits to having
hired the said crane sometime ago, opposes the instant application on grounds
that the said crane is no longer in its custody.&nbsp; This, the Plaintiff/Applicant is unable to confirm
or deny.&nbsp; What is however not in dispute
is the fact that the crane remains in the care, possession and control of the
1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant does not deny owing the Plaintiff but insists
that it will be unjust for the Court to grant the instant application as the
contract entered into by the parties does not confer a right on Plaintiff to
recover possession of the said crane in the event of a failure by the 1st
Defendant to pay the purchase price. The 1st Defendant further asserts that it is
currently the legal owner of the said crane, having registered the said crane
in its name.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Order
25 r 2(1) states as follows: “on the application of any party to a cause or
matter the court may make an order for the detention, custody or preservation of
any property which is the subject matter of the cause or matter or in respect
of which any question may arise in the action…”&nbsp;
Thus in order for the Court to make an order for the preservation of any
property, the said property must be the subject matter of the action or the
property in question or must be at the center stage of the issues for
determination by the Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; SEE UNREPORTED CASE OF CFAO GHANA LTD. V
CIG MICROFINANCE LTD., SUIT NO. CM/0078/2016 dated the 5th day of February,
2016.&nbsp; Another case in point, is the case
of GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. V RAD
PRODUCTS, where the Court of Appeal laid down the factors to be considered
by the Court in making an order for detention, preservation, and custody of
property.&nbsp; The said factors include but are
not limited to, the following: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1) The order must be against the party in
possession of the property in dispute<o:p></o:p>2)&nbsp; The property must be the subject matter of
the suit.<o:p></o:p>3)&nbsp; There must be a dispute over the property
necessitating the need to preserve it pending the determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p>3)&nbsp; The Plaintiff must establish a prima facie
claim to the property.<o:p></o:p>4)&nbsp; An order for preservation must be directed
against the depreciation of the property. <o:p></o:p>5)
An order may not be made if it will cause undue hardship.<o:p></o:p>The
Court added that the above listed grounds are not exhaustive and may unfold
depending on the circumstances of each case. <o:p></o:p>In
the light of order 25 (2) and the above mentioned case, I consider it
imperative for the Court to ascertain what the true subject matter of this case
is, in order to arrive at a decision as to whether the Plaintiff/Applicant is
entitled to a grant of its prayer. <o:p></o:p>By
an amended writ filed on the 29th of December the Plaintiff seeks the following
among others:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1. Payment of the sum of five hundred and six
thousand, four hundred and eighty&nbsp;&nbsp; us
dollars being price originally agreed upon between the Plaintiff and the 1st
Defendant for the conditional sale of the of the Plaintiff’s power plus PATC TERRENCE MOBILE CRANE to the 1st Defendant
which sum the 1st Defendant failed or willfully refused to pay to the Plaintiff
despite repeated demands.<o:p></o:p>2.
Recovery of possession of the Plaintiff’s equipment which the Defendant
has&nbsp;&nbsp; wrongfully detained and is using
same.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp; Damages from both Defendants for the wrongful
detention and subsequent hire&nbsp;&nbsp; of the
Plaintiff’s said crane by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant at the full
market rate of hire.<o:p></o:p>It
appears from the nature of the claim, pleadings and affidavits filed that, both
Parties are ad idem on the issue the said machine was initially to be kept in
the custody of Plaintiffs agent until the 1st Defendant had paid the full
purcha</main>