FRED ADJEI BOATENG vs. BRISK CREDIT [2017]DLHC3808

Date	2017-02-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMISC 544/2014
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3808

JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT LABOUR DIVISION I ACCRA

EBENEZER AHIATOR ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF

RICHARD DUA ANSAH ESQ FOR DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC3808
																																						<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" >FRED ADJEI BOATENG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BRISK CREDIT<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (LABOUR &amp;
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION I), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>SUIT NO. BMISC 544/2014&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 27TH FEBUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EBENEZER AHIATOR ESQ. FOR
PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>RICHARD DUA ANSAH ESQ FOR
DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GIFTY DEKYEM (MRS)
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT, LABOUR DIVISION I, ACCRA <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>Plaintiff is a taxi driver. Defendant is a micro finance company
in the business of lending money. On 11th March, 2013, Defendant
advanced a loan amount of GHS5,000.00 to Plaintiff for a period of twelve (12)
months ending 27th February, 2014. Plaintiff was to service the loan
by weekly payment of GHS167.00 inclusive of interest. The loan was secured with
the document of Plaintiff’s taxi and a personal guarantor. Plaintiff concedes
that, he defaulted in the repayment since his taxi was involved in an accident
and he notified Defendant of same. Plaintiff averred that, in September, 2013,
Defendant seized his taxi which was used as security for the loan. Plaintiff
averred further that, he went to Defendant to discuss the seizure of his taxi
in another taxi bought for him by one George Hammond and Defendant seized that
taxi as well and has since refused to release both cars. It is Plaintiff’s case
that, by the seizure of the two taxi vehicles, he is losing daily sales income
of GHS50.00 for each vehicle hence he seeks the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order compelling the
Defendant to release the two vehicles to Plaintiff forthwith. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order compelling Defendant
to pay for the daily sales of GHC50.00 for each of the vehicles from September
2013 till the day Defendant will release the two vehicles. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for depriving Plaintiff
from lawfully practicing his trade since his driving license was in one of the
vehicles. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Cost and professional legal fee
of Plaintiff’s Solicitors. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim and averred that,
plaintiff has since 9th May, 2013 defaulted in the weekly repayment
of the loan. <o:p></o:p>Defendant averred further that, the loan agreement provided for a
5% daily penalty for default of any weekly repayment and 30% per annum on
outstanding balance at the end of the loan period. Defendant contends that, it
was Plaintiff’s auto mechanic who brought the taxi to its offices after several
demands for payment of the loan had proved futile and there was nothing on the
vehicle which showed it had been involved in an accident though it was unmotorable.
It is the case of Defendant that, the taxi used to secure the loan had been
registered in its name thus it gave Plaintiff the option to pay off the
outstanding balance of the loan and have the vehicle transferred to his name or
at least put the vehicle in good and motorable condition for the defendant but
Plaintiff refused to do any of that. It is Defendant’s case that, it has always
been willing to release the vehicles to the Plaintiff upon Plaintiff
liquidating the debt as the vehicle is being kept at a cost to Defendant.
Defendant conten</main>