JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.
Only one point arises for serious consideration in this case. But the case is not made any the less easy for that reason. There is no question that the plaintiff was at the material time the owner of the Volkswagen car No. CP 8444. The defendants have not seriously disputed that on the evidence. On or about 23 June [p.116] 1962 this car was attached by the deputy sheriff in execution of the judgment debt of one Nakouzi owed to the defendants. The car was then lying in the yard in Accra of this Nakouzi who was a friend of the plaintiff and with whom it had been left when the plaintiff stayed for a few days in Koforidua. The evidence does not show the total amount of the judgment debt or whether any other goods were seized on Nakouzi's premises apart from this car. On his return to Accra and upon discovering that his car had been wrongly seized as the property of his friend, the plaintiff put in a claim in the registry of the court that the car was his. The deputy sheriff did not interplead. Nor did the claim prevent the car being eventually sold a few days later in satisfaction of the judgment debt. After more than a year the plaintiff managed to get the car back from the purchaser. He has now brought this action for damages for the wrongful seizure and sale of the car; the damages consisting of the taxi fares that he said he had to pay at the rate of £G2 (N¢4.00) per day from 7 July 1962, that is, the day of the sale of the car to 18 August 1963, the day before he recovered it from the purchaser, all to the total value of £G720 (N¢1,440.00) and the cost of repairs. Altogether the plaintiff by his writ claim £G1,000 (N¢2,000.00).
That there was a wrongful seizure of the plaintiff 's car cannot be a subject of dispute. He was not a debtor in any way of the defendants but his car was seized in execution of a judgment in favour of the defendants. Mr. Quashie-Idun, counsel for the defendants has said that there was no wrongful seizure as the execution was done under a court order. But surely that is not the test. The writ of fi. fa. authorised the deputy sheriff to seize the goods of the judgment debtor in the other action. It did not authorise him to seize anybody else's goods. If he seizes another's goods then the seizure is prima facie unlawful. That is why rules are provided to afford him protection if he adopts certain procedures upon discovering the wrong perpetrated. What this court has to consider is whether the defendants a
