SAMUEL ADAE – AMOAKO vs. MR. C.K. ARHIN [2018]DLCA6198

Date	2018-11-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/58/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA6198

ADUAMA OSEI J.A. (PRESIDING)

DZAMEFE J. A.

WELBOURNE (MRS) J. A.

JAMES MARSHALL BELLIEB FOR DEFENDANT/APPELALNT.

[2018]DLCA6198
																																						<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" >SAMUEL ADAE – AMOAKO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. C.K. ARHIN<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><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">

SUIT NO. H1/58/2016&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13TH NOVEMBER, 2018 <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

JAMES
MARSHALL BELLIEB FOR DEFENDANT/APPELALNT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ADUAMA
OSEI J.A. (PRESIDING), DZAMEFE J. A., WELBOURNE (MRS) J. A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>WELBOURNE,
JA<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the Commercial
Division of the High Court, Kumasi against the judgment of the learned trial
judge; dated the 27thday of January, 2015.<o:p></o:p>BRIEF
FACTS:<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff’s case was that he
entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of a complete
stainless water filtration system and packaging machines at an agreed cost of
US$22,000 which at the time was equivalent to GH₵31,000 which amount the Plaintiff paid
to the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>Per his Statement of Claim the
Plaintiff stated that subsequently the Defendant called him on phone after some
months to inform him that the machine had arrived and that he the Defendant was
on his way to the Plaintiff’s house to install same.<o:p></o:p>According to the Plaintiff, he
instructed the Defendant not to send the machines to his (the Plaintiff’s)
house for installation until same had been inspected by his engineer before he
could take delivery of same.<o:p></o:p>However, the Defendant refused to
comply with this directive and went ahead to send the machine to the
Plaintiff’s house.<o:p></o:p>It is also, the case of the Plaintiff
that even though he instructed his gateman not to permit the Defendant to enter
his house in his absence, the Defendant managed to dump the machines in his
house before the gateman could carry out the order.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff stated that on the subsequent
inspection of the machines, it came out that the machines were not according to
specification and also incomplete.<o:p></o:p>He therefore instituted the instant
action to recover the amount he paid to the Defendant after he had returned the
machines to the Defendant’s work place.<o:p></o:p>In his Statement of Defence, the
Defendant denied the claim of the Plaintiff. He stated categorically that the
machine he supplied was what the Plaintiff ordered for.<o:p></o:p>The Defendant did not deny that the
Plaintiff returned the machines to his premises save that it took the Plaintiff
a year to do so.<o:p></o:p>B</main>