ERIC ABROKWAH & ORS v. WEST PALM INVESTMENT LIMITED & PROSPER BENNOAH

JUDGMENT

The subject-matter of this interpleader suit is vehicle with registration number AW 5089- 12. The parties to this suit are the execution creditors in an earlier suit against West Palm Investment and the claimant to whom the vehicle in contention was issued by West Palm on “Work and Pay” basis. The claimant was made the Plaintiff, and the execution creditors, the Defendants, for the determination of the issues before this court.

The issues for determination are:(i) Whether or not oral evidence can be admitted to contradict documentary evidence;

(ii) Whether or not the vehicle in issue belongs to West Palm Investment Ltd; and iii) Whether the said vehicle can be attached in satisfaction of a debt owed by West Palm Investment Ltd. The evidential burden as well as the burden of persuasion of the 1st issue first rests on the Plaintiff. This is because it is the Plaintiff who seeks to rely on terms contrary to what is contained in the written agreement between him and West Palm Investment Ltd. He also assumes the same burden since he asserts ownership of the vehicle which has been attached. The Defendants will bear the burden of proof on the third for determination in view of the fact that the vehicle was attached at their instance.

A summary of the Plaintiff’s case as gleaned from his evidence in court is that he applied for and was given the above mentioned vehicle by West Palm Investment under an agreement. Per that agreement, he paid 10% of the cost of the vehicle and was required to make weekly payments of at least GH¢167.00. According to him, the price of the vehicle he applied for was GH¢25,000.00, but what was eventually assigned to him had a faulty engine and so the price was reduced to GH¢19,000.00. He replaced the engine at a cost of GH¢3,100.00. Thus, the cost of the engine was added to the price of the vehicle and he made a down payment of GH¢ 3,000.00. He told the court that the weekly payments were fixed at GH¢167,000.00 but sometimes he paid more. He continued that West Palm failed to carry out repairs on the vehicle as agreed and that whenever he pre-financed repairs, West Palm would issue him with a receipt confirming that such repairs had been done. In all, the Plaintiff said he made payments totaling GH¢12,012.00 and was issued with receipts. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that when the amount spent on repairing the vehicle is deducted, the cash payments he made totaled GH¢9,000.00. However, he stopped making payments