NANA DWAMENA MENSAH vs. CHRISTIAN AKWETEY [2018]DLHC3740

Date	2018-04-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/17/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3740

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

SARFO GYAMFI FOR PLAINTIFF

LESLIE AMEDIOR FOR AKWASI ARHIN FOR DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC3740
																																						<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"></a><a name="OLE_LINK11"></a><a name="OLE_LINK12">NANA DWAMENA
MENSAH<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHRISTIAN AKWETEY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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/17/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 12TH APRIL, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SARFO
GYAMFI FOR PLAINTIFF&nbsp; <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">

LESLIE AMEDIOR FOR AKWASI
ARHIN FOR DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
case arose from an excavator rental agreement that the parties herein entered
into on 12/02/2016 which has gone bad. The Plaintiff’s case is that the parties
mutually agreed that the Defendant shall hire Plaintiff’s wheel loader caterpillar
966 at the total sum of GHC 1200.00 for eight hours per day. The Defendant conveyed
the excavator to his site, but complained of some minor mechanical problems
which the Plaintiff fixed. Over the period, the Plaintiff said he spent a total
amount of GHC 10,000.00 in fixing the excavator, but apart from the initial
deposit of GHC 1200.00, the Defendant has failed to abide by the agreement. It
is as a result of these background facts that the Plaintiff is seeking from the
Court:<o:p></o:p>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order compelling the Defendant to return
the Plaintiff’s caterpillar wheel loader 966 machine that was hired to the Defendant
at his instance on 12/02/2016 in a motorable state.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order compelling the Defendant to pay
the total sum of GHC 144, 0000 same being the total sums of money in respect of
the hiring and usage of Plaintiff’s caterpillar wheel loader 966 between
12/02/2016 and September 2016.<o:p></o:p>C.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Damages for breach of contract. <o:p></o:p>These
claims were denied by the Defendant, who alleged that upon hiring the
excavator, he noticed that it had so many mechanical faults and he brought the
same to the attention of the Plaintiff. Upon the instructions of the Plaintiff,
the Defendant alleged that he expended his own money in fixing some of the
mechanical faults but the problems persisted and the machine could not work so
as to generate the needed revenue to pay the Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>By
way of Reply, the Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s assertions that the machine
could not be used because of the persistent mechanical faults. He averred that
he went to the town where the Defendant was operating and a Beer Bar Keeper
confirmed to him that the Defendant parked the machine close to the Bar at the
close of work each day and sent same to work on his site every morning.&nbsp; He again averred that another young man
informed him that the Defendant was renting out the machine at an hourly rate
of GHC 300.00. As a result of these activities, the Plaintiff contended that
the tyres of the machine became faulty and he had to buy additional 18 bolts
for the repairs. Again, he contended that there was an arbitration before the Defendant’s
wife’s father and the Defendant was told to place the machine at the Plaintiff’s
disposal and also to pay for the number of days that he had used the machine. <o:p></o:p>The
following issues were set down for trial by the pre-trial judge:<o:p></o:p><!--[if !supportLi</main>