BERNARD DANKWA VS NANA AFRAKOMA PREMPEH & ANOR
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS- KODWO (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court case arises from a credit sale of a Mercedes‑Benz C240 by a businessman (Plaintiff) to the 1st Defendant and her then husband, Mr. Adotey‑Acquaye, for US$25,000, of which US$19,000 was paid. After their divorce, the 1st Defendant claimed ownership, promised to settle the balance, and later sold the car to a third party. She, a director of the 2nd Defendant printing press company, maintained the vehicle belonged to the company, relying on a DVLA Form C (Exhibit A) purporting to transfer title. Plaintiff denied signing Exhibit A and produced his passport signature, asserting the transfer document was fraudulent. Evaluating credibility, statutory burdens under the Evidence Act (NRCD 323), and presumptions of ownership by possession, the court found Exhibit A lacked probative value, preferred the Plaintiff’s consistent and corroborated account, held the 1st Defendant liable for the outstanding US$6,000, and entered judgment with interest from December 2008 and costs of GH¢5,000.
By an amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim the Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants making a claim for: a. An order for the recovery of Six Thousand US Dollars (US$6, 000. 00) or its Cedi equivalent being the outstanding balance of the cost of the Mercedes Benz vehicle sold on credit by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant who transferred same to 2nd Defendant.
b. Interest on the said Six Thousand US Dollars (US$6, 000. 00) at the prevailing bank rate from December 2008 up to the date of final payment.
c. Cost. Per the depositions in the amended statement of claim pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 4th February 2015, the Plaintiff, a business man avers he sold the Benz vehicle in dispute to the first defendant who was then married to her former husband for Twenty Five Thousand Dollars(US$25, 000. 00) on credit.
Both she and her former husband made payments totaling Nineteen Thousand US Dollars (US$19, 000. 00) leaving a balance of Six Thousand US Dollars US$6, 000. 00. Upon the dissolution of their marriage the 1st Defendant claimed ownership of the vehicle and promised to pay the balance directly to the Plaintiff.
She then offered to pay off the balance with an offer of a piece of land which did not work out.
Eventually she told him she was unwilling to pay it off due to the alimony she received from her husband.
According to the Plaintiff’s averments he offered to refund the amount paid to her if she would return the vehicle but she refused the offer and sold the vehicle off to a third party without Plaintiff’s consent.
She then changed her story saying the Plaintiff had sold the vehicle to the second defendant so any amount due to the Plaintiff should be recovered from the 2nd Defendant.
Plaintiff contends he dealt with the 1st defendant.
So any purported transfer of title in the vehicle to the 2nd defendant must have been orchestrated by the 1st defendant who in applying to have the 2nd defendant joined to the suit, attached a document of transfer purporting to have been signed by him (Plaintiff) transferring title in the vehicle in dispute to the 2nd defendant.
This document he avers, only came to his attention when the 1st defendant sought to have the 2nd defendant joined to the suit.
He denies that it is his deed and contends that either the 1st defendant fraudulently prepared same or fraudulently caused it to be prepared.
Never did he consent to any such transfer and that she caused it to be purportedly si