JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.
The brief facts of this case which are straightforward and in the main not in dispute are as follows: The plaintiff and the defendants are parties to an agreement the terms of which are contained in a document which for the purpose of this trial was by consent [p.154] accepted as exhibit A. Exhibit A is titled "Hire-Purchase Agreement Motor Vehicle" and was executed on 17 October 1970. Exhibit A is in respect of a sale by the defendants (described therein as a motor dealer) of a Toyota bus with registration No. GO 975 to the plaintiff who is a driver by vocation. The hire-purchase price of the said bus on the undisputed facts was ¢7,200 out of which an initial deposit of ¢2,000 was paid by the plaintiff. The balance of ¢5,200 was spread over seventeen months at ¢300 per month. Exhibit A shows that the first instalment was to be paid on 17 November 1970 and the last and final instalment on 30 April 1972. The facts further show that when exhibit A was executed the bus was released to the plaintiff under terms contained therein.
It appears that during the currency of the agreement, the exact time is not clear on the pleadings but from the statement of claim it might be some time after 30 June 1971, the plaintiff fell into some arrears with his instalments and this resulted in the bus being seized by the defendants in exercise of their rights under the terms of exhibit A. It appears that certain events took place between the parties when the vehicle was seized but which for the purpose of this ruling are irrelevant and therefore will not be discussed. The admitted facts show that before the plaintiff’s action was commenced a total sum of ¢4,215 had been paid under the agreement leaving a balance of ¢2,985. The defendants in admitting the seizure of the vehicle as alleged by the plaintiff pleaded in paragraph (4) of their statement of defence as follows:
“In further answer to the said paragraph (4) of the claim the defendants say that the plaintiff was owing part of the instalments due in January 1971 and also part of June 1971, and what is worse the plaintiff without the knowledge and consent of the defendants took the said vehicle to the Ivory Coast in utter violation of the terms of the hire-purchase agreement dated 17 October 1970 executed between the parties therein."
The events which seem to have sparked off the present action were that according to the plaintiff when the vehicle was seized he went to see the defendants
