DAVID ANTOH AND HOTNA LIMITED v. CAITEC MOTORS LIMITED AND CAITEC DELTA LIMITED
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE WILLIAM BOAMPONG
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (per Justice William Boampong) adjudicated a dispute between David Antoh and his company and a vehicle distributor over two transactions. First, a FAW tipper truck was sold for US$63,000 via a pro-forma invoice describing a 310HP engine; after persistent defects, a court-appointed expert confirmed the engine was 260HP (CA6DF2-26), not as described. Applying Section 11 of the Sale of Goods Act, the court found a breach of the implied condition that goods correspond to their description, and under Section 49(1)(b) held the buyers could reject the truck and recover the price with interest. Second, the court found the separate 2013 Shackman tipper arrangement was a hire purchase; the Defendants repossessed it without the required 14-day written demand under Section 17 and later sold it outside the auction process, leading to dismissal of their counter-claim. Special damages were denied for lack of proof; damages and costs were awarded.
J U D G M E N T
Per their Writ of Summons the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants as follows:
1. Damages for breach of Section 11 of the Sale of Goods Act 1962 Act 137 by
Defendants in the sale of FAW Truck No: GE 6334-11 to the Plaintiffs.
2. Recovery of the sum of US$63,000.00 (Sixty Three Thousand United States
Dollars) or its equivalent being the price paid by the Plaintiff for the said
truck under Section 49(1) and 55 of the Sale of Good Acts (Act 137).
3. Interests on the said amount at the prevailing commercial bank rate from
th May, 2011 till date of final payment.
4. Special damages of GH¢28,297.60 (Twenty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred
and Ninety Seven Ghana Cedis, Sixty Pesewas).
To the Plaintiffs claim, the Defendants filed their Amended Statement of Defence
and Counter Claim.
The said Amended counter claim is quoted as follows:
1. Defendants say under a sale agreement entered on 7th November, 2013
between the parties Defendants sold a shack man Tipper Truck at a total of
USD88,000.00 (Eighty Eight Thousand United States Dollars) plus interest
of USD11,432.00 (Eleven Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty Two United
States Dollars).
2. Under the agreement Plaintiff issued 24 post-dated cheques payable over
24 months.
3. Plaintiff have defaulted in the payment on the dates agreed upon
wherefore the said agreement has been abrogated and Defendants are
entitled to claim.
a. The sum of USD99,432.00 (Ninety Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and
Thirty Two United States Dollars) or its cedi equivalent.
b. Interest on the said sum from date of this Writ of Summons to date of final
payment.
c. Legal fees.
PLAINTIFFS CASE
The 1st Plaintiff who is the Managing Director of the 2nd Plaintiff filed a Witness
Statement on his behalf and on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff. Their evidence is that
the Defendants do business as sellers and distributors of vehicles, truck, buses
and earth moving equipment from China and elsewhere.
On the 22nd March 2011, the 1st Defendant placed an advert in the Daily Graphic
of a number of vehicles it was offering for sale per Exhibit ‘B’ (a pro-forma
invoice).
The 1st Defendant entered into a negotiation to buy a FAW Tipper Truck 10
wheeler.
The Defendants sold same to the Plaintiff for USD63,000.00 (Sixty Three Thousand
United States Dollars). 1st Plaintiff made a part payment of USD 50,000.00 (Fifty
Thousand United States Dollars) to the 2nd Defendant and he was issued with a
receipt per Exh