J. A. PLANT POOL (GH) LTD v. ALHAJI MOHAMMED ABASS

J U D G M E N T

POKU- ACHEAMPONG, JA:

This is an appeal against a judgment of a Kumasi High Court delivered on 14th November, 2017.

The Plaintiff is a Transport Operator and the owner of Yutong bus with registration number GC 4810 Z.

The Defendant Company is a Ghanaian Company engaged in the business of plant pool, rentals/leasing of heavy construction Machinery and Equipment, as well as Mining, Forestry, Agriculture, Sanitation, and the authorised dealer in Yutong buses.

In this judgment the Plaintiff shall be referred to as the Plaintiff or Respondent and the Defendant as Defendant or Appellant.

Plaintiff’s case:

The Plaintiff’s case is that he is a beneficiary of an agreement between the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) and the Ghana Private Road Transport Union (GPRTU).

Under this scheme the GPRTU acquired about 125 Yutong buses from the ADB on credit. The Plaintiff in or around September 2008 was allocated bus Number GC 4810 Z by the bank on credit basis.

Plaintiff claims he was making a monthly payment of GH¢5,500 to the ADB as agreed in payment for the bus.

After some months of operation the vehicle started developing faults and breakdowns on the road. He later found that the vehicle had latent manufacturing defects. Following an advice he received that the Defendant was the main service provider/repairer of Yutong buses in Ghana he contacted the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company advised him to send the vehicle to any of its workshops across the country for repairs.

In pursuance of this advice, Plaintiff towed the vehicle which had then broken down to the Defendant’s workshop at Kodie in Kumasi on 10th February, 2012 as stated in paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim. He was asked to pick up the vehicle, after two weeks. When he went back to the Defendant Company’s workshop at Kodie to pick up the vehicle after the two weeks as scheduled, the workshop informed him that the vehicle had been confiscated for non-payment of the monthly instalments.

The Defendant refused to release the bus to him, notwithstanding his protests which included getting the Police to accompany him to retrieve the vehicle from the workshop.

He therefore brought an action against the Defendant on 18/6/13 for the following reliefs:

a. A declaration that the Defendant’s detention of Plaintiff’s vehicle No GC 4810 Z was unlawful.

b. A further order directed at the Defendant to release vehicle Number GC 4810 Z to the Plaintiff.

c. General, special and pun