INTRODUCTION[1] The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Ghana and deals in automobiles and aftersales service.
The Defendant is a businessman living in Accra and he is related to the Officers of the Plaintiff Company by marriage.
On March 28 2017, Defendant took delivery of a Hyundai Tuscon with Registration No. No. GT 9374-17 from the Plaintiff.
It is the delivery of the said vehicle to Defendant which has brought about the present suit for which Plaintiff claims Defendant has committed the tort of conversion.
PLAINTIFFS’ PLEADINGS[2] It is the case of the Plaintiff that on or about 28th March 2017, the Defendant took custody of a Hyundai Tuscon vehicle with registration No. GT 9374-17 from Plaintiff under the guise of delivering same to a Government Official, Mr. Samuel Abu Jinapor at the Presidency, who, according to the Defendant was interested in buying.
According to Plaintiff after some time since the Plaintiff took the vehicle away, the Plaintiff served a statement of account on the Defendant for payment for the vehicle, but the Defendant claimed that the vehicle was in possession of the said government official.
It is the case of the Plaintiff that after two years, it found out that Defendant had been driving the car for his advantage but was giving endless excuses to the Plaintiff as to why the government official had not paid for the vehicle.
According to Plaintiff it had made efforts to contact Mr. Abu Jinapor and demanded payment for the vehicle from him, but he denied having requested any vehicle from Plaintiff.
According to Plaintiff, it has since repossessed the vehicle from Plaintiff. [3] Plaintiff on 18 February 2021 sued out the present writ of summons claiming the following reliefs against the Defendant: 1. Damages for conversion 2. Damages for fraud 3. General Damages 4. Any other reliefs or orders that this Honourable Court may deem fit 5. Costs inclusive of Solicitor’s fees.
DEFENDANT’S PLEADINGS[4] The Defendant filed a defence and denied the claim of the Plaintiff in its entirety.
It is the case of the Defendant that sometime in March 2017, the Plaintiff after several efforts to recover the purchase price of 45 vehicles sold to the Office of the President in 2012 had failed, engaged him to recover the debt on a commission basis.
It is the further case of Defendant that as a further assurance of his engagement and part-payment of his service, Plaintiff delivered the disputed Hyundai Tuscon vehicle
