ATTA v. ADEVOR

JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.

The facts in this appeal are not much in dispute and they are briefly that on 8 February 1967 the appellant bought on credit a vehicle No. AG 7982 from the respondent at the price of ¢1,800. In accordance with the agreement he made part payment of ¢800 leaving the balance to be paid by stipulated instalments which were embodied in a note described as a "deed of promise" and which reads:

"DEED OF PROMISE

Whereas I, the undersigned, Joseph Kofi Atta of Kpandu Aloi, Kpandu District, Volta Region of Ghana, am indebted to E. K Adevor of Aveme Drah, Kpandu District, Volta Region of Ghana in the sum of £G500 (¢1,200) being balance of that three-ton Austin track No. AG 7982, I did buy from him.

This serves as my deed of promise, promising to pay to the said E. K. Adevor the balance of the said amount of £G500 (¢1,200) by a monthly instalment of £G70 (¢168) pending full payment.

Failure on my part to make good payment of the said amount on the instalment basis above-stated, the owner of the said vehicle, E. K. Adevor, shall have right to seize, and dispose of on sale to any other person or persons the said vehicle after a month's grace for the recovery of his balance that may be due and owing by me.

Dated at Kpandu, 8 February 1967.

(Sgd.) Joseph Kofi Atta

(J. K. Atta)

DEBTOR."

As it is often the experience in this kind of transaction, the delivery of the vehicle was subsequent to the signing of the agreement. More often than not the purchasers are so anxious to obtain possession that they fail to exercise caution by taking expert advice or adequate steps to check the road worthiness of the vehicle before sale or delivery to them. The victims are almost invariably drivers who want to own their own vehicles.

Be that as it may, soon after delivery the vehicle broke down and had to undergo extensive repairs. In the result the appellant was unable to meet his obligations under the agreement and the respondent exercised his right of forfeiture. The appellant pleaded with the respondent who restored the vehicle. The appellant raised a loan of ¢600 to effect the necessary repairs. Thus he had to repay both the loan and the instalment, a task he was unequal to. After a few months' default to pay the instalments the respondent seized the vehicle for the second time on 31 July 1968 but was again persuaded not only to release the vehicle but to reduce the instalments. Even with these concessions, the appellant defaulted [p.345] in the payme