DAVID AMOO-OSAE JNR. v. RANA MOTORS GHANA LTD.
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- WELBOURNE (MRS), J.A. (PRESIDING)
- GAISIE (MRS), J.A.
- BAAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Insurance Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Welbourne J.A. (with Gaisie J.A. and Baah J.A. concurring), affirmed the High Court’s judgment arising from a dispute over a 2011 Kia Cerato Coupe purchased with a five-year/100,000 km warranty. After a gearbox failure, the car was submitted to the Appellant’s workshop, where catastrophic October 2011 flooding submerged vehicles, including the Respondent’s. The Appellant alternated between claiming the vehicle was beyond salvage and asserting it had been repaired and certified roadworthy by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, but offered no expert proof beyond a DVLA certificate. Applying occupier’s liability, the trial judge found the Appellant owed a duty to keep the premises safe and, under the Sale of Goods Act (Act 137), the Respondent could reject the vehicle given prolonged downtime and unresolved defects. The Court of Appeal agreed, ordering a refund of US$20,550.00, awarding interest from 22 October 2011 to judgment and statutory post-judgment interest thereafter, limiting loss-of-use damages to 24 months, and disallowing the Appellant’s repair-cost counterclaim under the warranty.
WELBOURNE, J.A
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court, Commercial Division dated the 25th day of November, 2013.
In this appeal, the Plaintiff will be described as the Respondent while the Defendant will be described as the Appellant.
The Background:
The Respondent issued a Writ of Summons claiming inter alia an order directed at the Appellant Company to deliver to the Respondent a Brand New Kia Cerato Coupe (2011 Model) as a replacement for the Respondent or in the alternative, recovery of the sum of Twenty Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty US Dollars (US$20,550.00) being the price of the new Kia Cerato Coupe vehicle.
The Respondent bought the car, subject to a warranty effective for Five years or 100,000 km from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the Respondent, whichever occured earlier. He used it for a period of time then it developed a fault with the gears. He sent the vehicle to the workshop of the Appellant Company where the car was detained for proper assessment.
The Respondent was informed that the gear box of the vehicle was damaged and had to be replaced. He therefore left the vehicle in the custody of the Appellant.
While waiting for the vehicle to be replaced, Accra suffered a heavy rainstorm on 26th, 27th and 28th October, 2011. The workshop of the Appellant became fully submerged in flood water and vehicles in the custody of the Appellant including the Respondents were fully submerged in the flood water.
The Respondent was still assured that his vehicle could be restored to use, despite the flood. The Appellant further promised that it would effect the replacement of the faulty gear box. Although the Respondent was given several dates to expect the return of his vehicle, the Appellant failed to do so. This caused the Respondent to assume that his vehicle could not be repaired due to the floods and the magnitude of the gear box damage.
The Respondent therefore notified the Appellant of his rejection of the vehicle and demanded a replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price that he had paid for it. His request was rejected by the Appellant. He was never also given custody of the vehicle.
Faced with the inaction of the Appellant, the Respondent issued a Writ at the High Court indorsed with the following reliefs:
a. An order directed at the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff a brand new Kia Cerato Coupe (2011 model) as replacement for the Plaintiff’s same vehicle submerged in flood water at the work