BARNES v. AMEEN SANGARI & CO.
1966
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- MILLS-ODOI
- SIRIBOE
- LASSEY JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
1966
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant contended that he was in constructive possession of the motor vehicle when it was seized by the respondents without a court order, violating section 12(1) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1958. The High Court had previously dismissed his claim; however, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was in constructive possession and that the respondents wrongfully seized the vehicle. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, awarded the appellant the sum of G687 14s, and granted costs at both the trial court and the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT OF MILLS-ODOI J.S.C.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi, which on 14 May 1962, dismissed the appellant's claim for the sum of £G787 14s. which he brought under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1958,1 as being (a) £G687 14s. money had and received by the respondents and (b) £G100 as general damages.
The main question which fell for determination in this appeal is, whether on the facts which the trial judge found, he was right in holding (a) that the appellant was not in possession of the motor vehicle bearing registration number AF 9366, the subject-matter in dispute, at the time the respondents exercised their right of seizure under the hire-purchase agreement; and (b) that the appellant cannot claim protection under section 12 (1) of the aforesaid Act, and his claim must fail. It is therefore necessary to set out the facts at some length.
By an agreement in writing dated 28 August 1958, and made between the respondents and the appellant, the respondents agreed to let and the appellant agreed to hire an Omnitruck Austin bus No. AF 9366 for a total hire-purchase price of £G860 payable by an initial rental of £G100 and the balance by twelve consecutive monthly rentals thereafter of £G63 6s. 8d. each, the first such rental being due one month after the date of execution of the agreement. The agreement contained several clauses setting out conditions, stipulations and undertakings by which the hirer was bound. By clause 8 of the agreement,
"if any execution or distress be levied or threatened to be levied upon the said motor vehicle ... the owners [respondents] may forthwith determine the hiring without notice and may forthwith seize and take possession of the said motor vehicle wherever the same may be and may sue the hirer [appellant] or his representative for all amounts payable in respect of the said motor vehicle for arrears of rent . .”
The appellant complied with the obligations in respect of the initial rental of £G100 and paid the sum of £G63 6s. 8d. in respect of the first rental which fell due on 29 September 1959. In November 1960, the appellant had paid altogether a sum of £G687 14s.; he was therefore in arrears to the tune of £G176 6s.; but no steps were taken by the respondents to enforce their right to recover possession of the vehicle on the ground of default of payment of the rentals.
On or about 14 December 1960, one J. K. Korsah brought an action against