DAVID AMPONSAH v. MICHAEL ADU BOAHENE & ORS

JUDGMENT

On 5 February, 2014 the plaintiff herein instituted the instant action against the 1st Defendant herein. The 1st defendant prayed the court for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein to be joined to the suit. The application for joinder was granted and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were joined to the suit. Subsequently, the Plaintiff amended his writ of summons and statement of claim. The reliefs sought per the amended writ of summons were as follows:

“a. An order for the recovery of GH¢ 11, 070.00 from the Defendant which sum represents the price of the Opel Astra Caravan he purchased from the Defendant and the expenses he has made on the vehicle which has turned to be fraudulent and passed no title to the Plaintiff

b. An order for the Plaintiff to go into account with the Defendant for GH¢ 25.00 the driver was making everyday including Sundays from the time the Opel Astra was seized from the driver up to the time the Defendant will pay him the amount he has spent on the Opel Astra Caravan.

c. Damages for breach of contract.

d. Any other relief deemed appropriate by the Honourable Court.”

The 2nd Defendant herein entered an appearance on 13/08/2014 and filed a statement of defence on 20/08/2014. In the statement of defence, the 1st Defendant denied liability to the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that he bought the vehicle from the 2nd Defendant and that he conducted due diligence to ensure that the documents were genuine before selling same to the plaintiff. He also averred that the 2nd Defendant will be in a position to assist the court determining the authenticity of the documents.

The 2nd Defendant also denied liability to the plaintiff and stated in his statement of defence that he only acted as an intermediary for the 1st Defendant in the sale of the vehicle to the plaintiff. He also emphasised that he had never owned the vehicle in question and said that he is not in a position to ascertain the authenticity of the documents covering the vehicle.

It is important to note that the 3rd Defendant did not enter an appearance in spite of the service of the court processes on him by substituted service.

After unsuccessful attempts at settlement, four issues were set down for trial namely:

Whether or not the documents covering the Opel Astra Caravan with Registration No. GR 1219-12 given to Plaintiff was fake;

Whether the vehicle in issue belonged to 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant only acted as intermediary for the 1st Defendant for the sale to