DEBORAH OFORI & ANOR. (PLAINTIFF) vs. DRIVER & VEHICLE LICENSING AUTHORITY (DVLA) & 2ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7161

DEBORAH OFORI & ANOR. (PLAINTIFF) vs. DRIVER & VEHICLE LICENSING AUTHORITY (DVLA... [2019]DLHC7161

Date	2019-01-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BDC/001/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7161

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

KWAME ASIVI FOR PLAINTIFS/APPLICANTS

[2019]DLHC7161
																																						<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" >DEBORAH
OFORI &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DRIVER &amp;
VEHICLE LICENSING AUTHORITY (DVLA) &amp; 2ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[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. CM/BDC/001/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 17TH JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

KWAME
ASIVI FOR PLAINTIFS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In this
application, the Plaintiffs/Applicants (herein after called “the Applicants”)
pray for an order directed at the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants/Respondents (hereafter called “the Respondents”) restraining them,
their agents, assigns or privies, from the use of Toyata vehicle with
Registration No. GX-2154-18 and for a further order for the preservation of the
said vehicle in the custody of the Registrar of this Court pending the final
determination of the case.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>I have read the
application and the respective affidavits filed by both Applicants and the
Respondents. I have also read the respective statement of case filed by the parties.&nbsp; Consideration has been given to Order 25
rules 1&amp;2 of C.I. 47 and the principles governing applications of this
nature. <o:p></o:p>The core issue
which I have been called to adjudicate on is as to whether or not there is the
need or necessity to preserve the vehicle, the subject-matter of dispute.<o:p></o:p>It is observed
that there is no dispute that the vehicle the subject matter of dispute was
originally owned by the Applicants.&nbsp;
There is also no dispute that the said vehicle was offered for sale for
which the 3rd Respondent expressed interest in acquiring the said
vehicle.&nbsp; I do not intend to go into the
merits of the issue whether payment of the vehicle was effected and whether or
not the transfer effected was unlawfully or fraudulently done.<o:p></o:p>The question
that needs to be answered is, is there any need or necessity for the subject
matter of this dispute to be preserved? &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Among the
reliefs being sought by the Applicants is a prayer for an order that the 2nd
and 3rd Defendants pay the Plaintiffs GH¢95,000.00 being the
purchase price of Toyota vehicle Rav 4 to them and registered as GX-2154-18 in
their joint names and a further prayer for interest on the GH¢95,000.00 at the
current lending rate of Commercial Banks from date of registration to date of
payment.<o:p></o:p>It is noted that
in deciding whether to grant an injunction, the Court considers various
factors, including whether an injunction is necessary.&nbsp; If the Applicant can be adequately
compensated with a financial reward, the Court might decide that an injunction
is not necessary. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The question is, would it be more just
to grant the injunction than to award damages? In considering the
appropriateness of damages, I would like to re-echo what Turner LJ stated in
the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL v SHEFFIELD
GAS CONSUMERS CO. (1853) 3 De G.M &amp; G 304 at 321; 43 E.R 119 at 126,
where he said of the test as:<o:p></o:p>“Whether this is a case in which the
remedy at law is so inadequate that the Court ought to interfere, having regard
to the legal remedy, the rights and interests of the parties, and the
consequences of this Court’s interference by injunction.”<o:p></o:p>It is observed that in the instant
case, the Applicants have previously agreed to accept payment of money for the
vehicle, which Respondents allege they have paid, the truth of which is yet to
be determined; the fact of the previous agreement to accept payment of money
for the vehicle, the subject matter of this application, is of evidential
significance in my consideration as to whether damages or compensation would be
adequate.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>From the legal reliefs sought by the
Applicants, it would rather be unjust for the Court, at the end of the trial to
order that the Respondents return the vehicle to the Applicants, knowing very
well that the said vehicle has been used by the 3rd Respondent over
a period of time thereby reducing its value.&nbsp;
Again, the wear and tear which the vehicle has suffered whiles in the
custody of the 3rd<</main>