MAHOB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED vs SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED &DAIMLER CHRYSLER AG [2022]DLSC11730

Date	2022-05-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO: BMISC/968/2015
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11730

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

SEAN POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF – PRESENT

AMA OPOKU AMPONSAH WITH ADWOA OTI DUAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT – PRESENT

JOSEPH KWADWO KONADU WITH SAEED MOOMIN H/B OF DAVID ADU TUTU FOR 2ND DEFENDANT – PRESENT

[2022]DLSC11730
																																						<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" >MAHOB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SILVERSTAR AUTO LIMITED &amp;DAIMLER
CHRYSLER AG<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO: BMISC/968/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 31ST, MAY 2022&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>SEAN
POKU FOR THE PLAINTIFF – PRESENT<o:p></o:p>AMA
OPOKU AMPONSAH WITH ADWOA OTI DUAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT – PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JOSEPH KWADWO KONADU WITH SAEED MOOMIN
H/B OF DAVID ADU TUTU FOR 2ND DEFENDANT – PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>&nbsp;i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This dispute is about alleged deficiencies with a Mercedes
Benz ML 300 CDI manufactured by the 2nd Defendant and distributed by the 1st
Defendant. The Plaintiff Company through its Chief Executive Officer, purchased
a new Mercedes Benz ML 300 CDI at a cost of Fifty Thousand Euros (€50,000.00)
from the 1st Defendant which sells Mercedes Benz vehicles in Ghana. The
Plaintiff says barely five months after purchasing the new vehicle it was sent
to the 1st Defendant to check the engine and to rectify “Excessive Engine Oil
Consumption”. The Plaintiff further contends that within a short period after
the purchase, the vehicle was sent to the 1st Defendant to first carry out
tests on the vehicle because it stopped in the middle of the road and could not
move and also check suspension noise and defective horn among other issues. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is the case of the Plaintiff that there were many defects
which could not have been detected before the purchase even though there was a
reasonable inspection of the vehicle. The Plaintiff therefore seeks a
declaratory order on the grounds that the vehicle was defective when same was
sold to it. The Plaintiff further makes a claim for General Damages and special
damages together with interest on the special damages.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The 1st Defendant denies the allegations of latent defects
and contends that the vehicle the Plaintiff purchased satisfied the
requirements of comfortability, reliability, durability and was subject to the
2nd Defendant (Daimler’s) two-year warranty. The 1st Defendant further contends
that the vehicle which was delivered was “fit, efficient and durable” and in
good condition. According to the 1st Defendant the defects set out by the
Plaintiff are inaccurate because the vehicle developed minor faults which arose
out of wear and tear which occurred after the Plaintiff put the vehicle to use,
which are normal. The 2nd Defendant denied all the allegations of defects
articulated by the Plaintiff and pleaded that it has had no dealings,
agreement, contract or understanding with the Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Action:<o:p></o:p>[4]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The instant action was commenced by issuing out a writ of
summons accompanied by a statement of claim to issue against the Defendants
jointly and severally for the following judicial reliefs;<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that Mercedes Benz M Class M300 CDI with
registration number GC 37 – 10 was a defective vehicle that Defendants sold to
Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An Order for the replacement of Plaintiff’s vehicle with a
New Mercedes Benz M Class vehicle.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General Damages<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Special Damages<o:p></o:p>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on any sum awarded at the prevailing bank rate from
01/11/13 up until date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<</main>