DAVID DARKO v. ROLAND ATTA KESSON

On 25-06-2008, David Darko, who says he is a Ghanaian ordinarily resident in the United States of America, caused a Writ of Summons to issue against the defendant, Roland Atta Kesson, by which he claims the following reliefs:

(i) A declaration that the plaintiff is the bona fide owner of BMW X 3 vehicle with chassis number WBXPA-93466-WD-30719.

(ii) An order releasing the said vehicle which is under preservation to the plaintiff.

(iii) An order compelling the defendant to pay Ghana cedis equivalent of US $100 per day from the date police impounded the vehicle till date of release for loss of use.

(iv) An order compelling defendant to pay cost to plaintiff.

(v) Costs.

The case of the plaintiff is that sometime in February, 2007, he imported a BMW X 3 cross country vehicle to Ghana for his use. When the vehicle arrived in Ghana, he engaged the services of a clearing agent who cleared the vehicle from the Tema Harbour after he, the plaintiff, had paid the requisite import duty and other charges. He used the vehicle for a while and decided to sell it before leaving for the United States.

To ensure that the vehicle was sold in good times, he informed friends and acquaintances to pass on his decision to sell the car. From time to time, some friends came for it to show prospective buyers who wanted to test drive. One friend came for it to enable a buyer test drive but failed to return it so he reported the case to the police.

The police mounted a search for the vehicle and retrieved it from a white man who claimed to have purchased it but failed to prove having paid the money to him (the plaintiff) or anybody else.

After retrieving the vehicle, he entrusted same to the care of his relation, Emmanuel Mensah, before he left for the United States. While in the United States, his said relation informed him that an acquaintance of his (the plaintiff) had indicated that he had a buyer who wanted to test drive the car whereupon he instructed his relative to accompany the acquaintance and oversee the test driving. However, as soon as they got unto the street, some policemen, ostensibly in waiting, arrested them and impounded the vehicle.

The police sent them and the vehicle to the police station and there the defendant who was waiting claimed ownership of the vehicle. The plaintiff’s relation challenged the defendant to prove his claim but he could not yet his relation was charged for stealing and arraigned before the Circuit Court.

It is the contention of the