Bank for Housing and Construction v Boahen

In July 1988, Adu Boahen (hereinafter called the plaintiff) sued the Bank for Housing and Construction (hereinafter called the “defendant”) and claimed the following reliefs as per his amended writ of summons:

“(1) ¢25,000,000 damages for the wrongful detention of the plaintiff’s vehicle No ARA 1359 whereof ¢21 million represents special damages and the balance, general damages.

(2) An injunction to restrain the defendant or its agents or servants from selling, disposing of or in any way dealing with the said vehicle without the consent of the plaintiff.

(3) An order for the delivery by the defendant to the plaintiff of the said vehicle.”

The writ of summons was not accompanied by a statement of claim; one was filed some six days later. The cause of action was founded on the seizure by the defendant of the said vehicle sometime in July 1983. The defendant omitted to file its statement of defence on time. In due course and with leave of the court the defendant filed its statement of defence on 18 October 1988. The defendant resisted the claim put forward by the plaintiff. Briefly put, the defendant countered that it lawfully seized the said vehicle and was therefore not liable to the plaintiff in damages. It therefore counterclaimed for ¢2,322,159.17 being the sum plaintiff owed on 9 October 1988 and two other reliefs which I need not reproduce here.

The case was fought on the merits. On 22 January 1991 the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant “for the reliefs endorsed on his amended writ of summons with ¢21 million as special damages and ¢3 million as general damages.” The defendant was aggrieved by the judgment and appealed to this court.

Before us, learned counsel for the defendant argued grounds (d), (e), (f) and (g) together. These grounds of appeal dealt with the issue whether the said vehicle was assigned to the defendant by the plaintiff. He submitted that on the undisputed evidence before the trial court, the said vehicle was assigned to the defendant by

the plaintiff. He took this court through the evidence before the court and showed that the new vehicle was substituted for the seven vehicles listed in exhibit A. He submitted that exhibit A was varied by agreement between the parties to that effect. He submitted that the defendant’s right to seize the vehicles in case plaintiff defaulted as contained in exhibit A was lawfully exercised. The trial judge erred in law when he held the seizure was unlawf