BENJAMIN ALIDU vs. ISAAC QUAINOO AND WENDY QUAINOO [2016]DLHC4256

Date	2016-02-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BDC/26/2010
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC4256

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU

MR. ROBERT DASSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

MR. CHALRES IMBEAH FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC4256
																																						<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">BENJAMIN ALIDU<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>ISAAC QUAINOO<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>
AND WENDY QUAINOO <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. BDC/26/2010&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: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2016 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. ROBERT DASSAH 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>

</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">

<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 1st defendant herein imported
into the country a cargo truck and put it up for sale. After a while, the
plaintiff whose friend is one Badu, a nephew of the 1st
defendant&nbsp; got to know of the sale of the
truck and expressed interest in acquiring the truck but it so happened that the
plaintiff did not have enough resources to buy and pay for the price of the
truck outright so the plaintiff was introduced to the 1st defendant
by his friend Badu whereupon the plaintiff entered into negotiations with the 1st
defendant to enable the plaintiff acquire the said truck on a hire purchase
basis. <o:p></o:p>An agreement was eventually reached by the
plaintiff and the 1st defendant after which the cargo truck was
released to the plaintiff. This agreement was reduced into writing. In the
course of time the 1st defendant repossessed the truck from the
plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore issued the instant writ against the
defendants for <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;">A declaration that by the hire purchase
 agreement executed between the parties aforesaid the plaintiff is a part
 owner of the truck in dispute.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order compelling the defendants to
 release the truck forthwith to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order compelling the defendants to
 pay amount equating GH₵2,000 per month
 for the period they confiscated the truck from the plaintiff for his loss
 of income.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; border: none;">An order compelling defendants to pay
 damages to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; border: none;">Costs<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>After the service of the writ and its
accompanying statement of claim on the defendants an Appearance was entered and
later a statement of defence was filed by the 1st defendant. And
after the failure of pre-trial settlement, the case was set down for hearing
wherein the plaintiff gave evidence and then called one witness to close his
case. The 1st defendant also gave evidence and called a witness to
close his case. <o:p></o:p>From the pleadings filed by the parties,
particularly paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement of claim as well as paragraph
3 of the statement of defence, the court finds that the parties agree that they
entered into a hire purchase agreement whereby the 1st defendant
agreed to sell his truck to the plaintiff on a hire purchase basis and that the
said agreement was reduced into writing. Exhibit A tendered by the plaintiff
attests to the hire purchase agreement entered by the parties. The 1st
defendant also tendered exhibit 1 which according to him is a copy of the hire
purchase agreement. <o:p></o:p>A close scrutiny of exhibit 1 shows
immediately that exhibit 1 is a complete forgery. This is so because the
penultimate page contains insertions which cannot be found on exhibit A. The
paper used to type the penultimate page is different from the paper used in
typing all the other pages. Ag</main>