HEWARD-MILLS v. R. T. BRISCOE (GHANA) LTD.

JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.A.

The plaintiff sent his car to the defendants in May 1971 for certain repairs to be carried out. After the work had been completed, the defendants' bills for the repairs payable by the plaintiff amounted to ¢1,300.88. The plaintiff was unable to pay the full amount but he offered to pay half the amount, that is ¢650.00 and promised to pay the balance of ¢650.88 by the middle of July 1971. This offer was accepted by the defendants and upon the receipt of ¢650.00, they released the car to the [p.140] plaintiff. However, the plaintiff did not fulfil his promise to pay the balance of ¢650.88 by the middle of July 1971 despite reminders sent to him.

In September 1972, the plaintiff sent his car to the defendants for other repairs to be undertaken. Upon completion of the work, they charged the plaintiff ¢305.72, which was promptly paid by the plaintiff on 17 October 1972. However, when the plaintiff's driver collected the car and was driving it out of the defendants' workshop, he was stopped at the gate and the defendants refused to let the car out. The explanation given by the defendants was that they still had a lien over the car on account of the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance of ¢650.88 for the earlier work done in May 1971. Notwithstanding the protestations of the plaintiff, the defendants continued to detain the car in their workshop.

On 28 March 1973, the plaintiff sued the defendants and claimed the return of the car and damages for detention of the car. The defendants resisted the action and counterclaimed for the sum of ¢650.88. Learned counsel for the parties agreed to set down for hearing the only legal point relevant to the dispute, namely, whether the defendants were entitled to a lien over the plaintiff's car for the outstanding balance. After hearing legal arguments, the learned trial judge delivered his ruling on 16 May 1973 and upheld the plaintiff's submission that as soon as the defendants released the car to the plaintiff after receiving the part payment, they abandoned possession of the car and accordingly lost their common law lien. As a result of this ruling, the defendants released the plaintiff's car to him the next day, that is, 17 May 1973.

Subsequently, the court below heard evidence on the question of damages and made its award. Although the plaintiff claimed ¢35.00 per day for loss of use of his car for 213 days, that is, from 17 October 1972 when the car was detained to 17 May 1973 when the car