CHRYSOLITE A. AGYRAKWA vs. JOYCELYN AVEDZI [2016]DLHC4209

Date	2016-03-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 43/2014
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC4209

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU

MS. EVA OKYERE WITH MS. FREDA BOATENG FOR THE PLAINTIFF

MR. CHARLES AMENYAGLO FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC4209
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">CHRYSOLITE A. AGYRAKWA<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOYCELYN AVEDZI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO. OCC 43/2014&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:
18TH MARCH, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MS. EVA OKYERE WITH MS. FREDA BOATENG FOR THE
PLAINTIFF <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">

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU,
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>The plaintiff and the defendant are both
nurses at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital in Accra. In the year 2012 the
defendant caused notices to be placed at certain sections of the premises of
the hospital stating that she was in the position to assist her colleagues
import cars from the United States of America. Following the said notices, the
plaintiff approached the defendant and expressed her interest and desire in
acquiring a 2010 model Toyota Corolla. The parties then entered into
negotiations after which the plaintiff paid some money to the defendant to be
used in buying and shipping the car from the United States. Upon the arrival of
the car in the country it was delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant some
days after it had been cleared from the harbour. After using the car for a
while, the plaintiff said she was no longer interested in the car and therefore
asked the defendant for a refund of the money which she paid towards the
purchase of the car. The defendant did not oblige the plaintiff’s request. The
plaintiff therefore caused to issue the instant writ of summons, on the 5th
day March 2015, against the defendant claiming<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order for specific performance of the
 contract between the plaintiff and the defendant or in the alternative, a
 refund of the amount GH₵17,000 being
 part of the purchase price paid.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">Interest on the part of the part payment
 of the purchase price mentioned above.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">Damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">A refund of an amount of GH₵10,470 being costs incurred for the
 repairs and clearing of the car.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">Interest on the above stated amount at
 the prevailing interest rate from July 2013 to date of final payment.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order directing the defendant to pay
 the duties and taxes on the said Toyota S/Car 2009 model for the purpose
 of restoring the plaintiff’s waiver concession.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;">Costs inclusive
 of professional fees.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>The defendant entered Appearance and later
filed her defence after the writ and the statement of claim had been served on
her. After the close of pleadings and the failure of pre-trial settlement
proceedings the matter was set down for hearing at which the plaintiff gave
evidence and called witnesses to close her case. Thereafter, the defendant also
gave evidence and closed her case without calling any witness.<o:p></o:p>The first issue raised by the pleadings is
whether the defendant is into the sale of cars. This is so because in
paragraphs 3 and 4 of her statement of claim, the plaintiff has averred that
the defendant made an offer to sell
cars to interested staff of the hospital as a result of which the plaintiff
indicated her willingness to acquire from the defendant a Toyota Corolla S/Car,
2010 model. The defendant has denied the plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 3
of her statement of defence and has asserted that she rather informed her
friends of her ability to assist them acquire used cars from abroad. In such
circumstances, sections 14 and 17 of the Evidence Act require the party
asserting the claim to lead credible evi</main>