BARNES v. AMEEN SANGARI & CO.
1962
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- CHARLES, J
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
1962
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
CHARLES, J. decided a dispute arising from a hire-purchase of a motor car between an unnamed plaintiff-hirer and the owner-defendants. The plaintiff had paid G687 14s. of a G860 price but fell into arrears. After J.N. Korsah obtained a local court judgment for G25 plus G2 costs against the plaintiff, execution was levied on the car. The plaintiff certified the vehicle as his property, and the sheriff released it to D.W.1 acting for the defendants. The court found clause 8 allowed immediate termination and seizure upon execution and, relying on Jelks v. Hayward and Eastern Distributors Ltd. v. Goldring, held that section 12(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1958, only restricts recovery from the hirer. Because the plaintiff was not in possession when the car was recovered, section 12(1) did not apply. The claim was dismissed, with costs to the defendants.
JUDGEMENT OF CHARLES, J.
In this action the plaintiff claims from the defendants the sum of £G787 14s. being (1) £687 14s. as money had and received by the defendants under a hire-purchase agreement, and (2) £G100 as [p.351] general damages. The plaintiff's claim is brought under the provisions of section 12(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 19581 which reads as follows:
"Where goods have been let under a hire-purchase agreement and seventy-five per cent of the hire-purchase price has been paid, whether in pursuance of a judgment or otherwise, or tendered by or on behalf of the hirer or any guarantor, the owner shall not enforce any right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than by action."
On the 28th August, 1959, the defendants let to the plaintiff on hire-purchase terms a motor car the price of which was £G860 payable by a first instalment of £G100 and the balance by twelve monthly instalments of £63 6s. 8d. In November, 1960, the plaintiff, who had not been making payments regularly, was in arrears of £G172 6s., though he had paid altogether £G687 14s. On the 14th December, 1960, one J.N. Korsah sued the plaintiff and obtained judgment in the local court for £G25 with costs of £G2. On the 16th December, 1960 execution was levied upon the vehicle and the plaintiff signed a certificate, exhibit E, claiming the car as his own property.
There is a conflict in the evidence concerning the circumstances under which the vehicle was released. The sheriff, P.W.1, stated that on the strength of a letter exhibit D, written by J.N. Korsah he released the vehicle to D.W.1 although D.W.1 was not authorised by the plaintiff to take delivery. D.W.1 stated that he told P.W.1 that the vehicle was owned by the defendants and P.W.1 delivered the vehicle to him after he had promised to try and collect from the plaintiff and pay to J.N. Korsah the amount of the judgment-debt and costs. According to J.N. Korsah he agreed to release the vehicle to D.W.1 who claimed it on behalf of the defendants because D.W.1 promised to pay him the amount of the judgment and costs. I accept this last version as substantially true because I believe that D.W.1 did tell P.W.1 that the defendants were the owners of the vehicle and P.W.1 would not have delivered the vehicle to D.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiff as D.W.1 was never authorised by the plaintiff to take delivery.
By clause 8 of the hire-purchase agreement, exhibit A, if any execution or distress is levied or th