GEORGIA HOTEL LIMITED v. SILVER STAR AUTO LIMITED

J U D G M E N T

SOPHIA ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC:

In October 2004 Hotel Georgia Limited, a limited liability company engaged in hotel and hospitality industry in Kumasi and Accra, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant herein, (hereinafter plaintiff company), purchased for the use of its managing director, a brand new Mercedes Benz E240 Avant-garde at a cost of €58,500 from the Silver Star Limited, the sole dealer of German-made Mercedes Benz vehicles in Ghana, the Defendant/Appellant/Respondent herein (hereinafter defendant company)

In September 2006 the vehicle broke down at Ejisu en route to Kumasi after minor repairs at the workshop of the defendant company at Tema. The plaintiff company had the vehicle towed to Kumasi and inspected by a private mechanic who declared the car engine defective. After that the plaintiff company brought a claim against the defendant company alleging that the vehicle suffered from latent defects.

The plaintiff company claimed by its writ of summons filed on 15 February 2007:

1. The replacement of Mercedes Benz E240 Avant-garde vehicle…with a brand new one, by reason of the latent defect in the said vehicle which the plaintiff bought from the defendant in October 2004.

2. In the alternative, the payment of the full replacement value of a brand new Mercedes Benz saloonE240 Avant-garde to the plaintiff by the defendant by reason of the wrongful sale of the wrongful sale of the defective brand new vehicle to it.

3. Loss of use.

4. Costs including solicitors professional fees.

On 28 July the High Court delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiff company for recovery of €58,500, interest at the prevailing bank rate from October 2006 to the date of payment, $10,000 for loss of use and costs of GH2, 000. This decision was reversed on appeal on 2 December 2010.

The plaintiff company appeals on the grounds that:

a) On the agreed evidence by the appellant as expressed in Exhibit CE1 the Court of Appeal misinterpreted what constitutes a latent manufacturer’s defect as it applied to the brand new Mercedes Benz E240NAvante-garde the Appellant bought from the respondent. The misinterpretation and misapplication of what constitutes a latent defect has occasioned the Appellant a substantial miscarriage of justice.

b) The Court erred when it relied on suspicion and conjecture to find that the fault on the car was caused by the Appellant’s agent.

c) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

What is a latent manufacturer’s defe