JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J.
The plaintiffs, cloth sellers, have sued the Attorney-General as the representative of the Republic of Ghana for "the sum of N¢28,750.00 being the value of 1,250 pieces of cotton wax prints (cloths) the property of the plaintiffs unlawfully seized, detained and or converted by the defendant."
The facts which gave rise to this suit are clearly set out in paragraphs (3) - (9) inclusive of the statement of claim. The said paragraphs read as follows:
"(3) The plaintiffs acting jointly and together proceeded from Kumasi to Kpandu in the Volta Region some time in and around 31 March 1968 and there purchased in the local market various pieces of wax print totalling in number 1,250 pieces at a total cost of N¢28,750.00.
(4) The plaintiffs after effecting their purchases of wax prints at Kpandu caused the said wax prints to be put on vehicle No. ER 1889 driven or in the charge of one F. K. Darko for delivery at Kumasi with the first plaintiff Amma Konadu accompanying and in charge of the said goods.
(5) On reaching somewhere between Asesewa and Adukrom, Akwapim, one Inspector R. A. Nutsugah and Corporal D. K. Ahiabu intercepted and stopped the vehicle ER 1889 with the passengers and goods thereon.
(6) The said Inspector R. A. Nutsugah and Corporal D. K. Ahiabu were at the material time the servants and agents of the defendant acting as a border guard anti-smuggling patrol in the course of their employment with the said defendant.
(7) The said Inspector R. A. Nutsugah and Corporal D. K. Ahiabu without any explanation caused and procured the first plaintiff to be put on a taxi cab and sent to Koforidua and thereafter caused the vehicle ER 1889 to be escorted to Tema with the driver F. K. Darko.
(8) The plaintiffs on or about 1 April 1968, proceeded to Tema to claim their goods but were informed that the goods were being held on suspicion that they were contraband goods which plaintiffs categorically deny.
(9) The plaintiffs have repeatedly demanded the return of their goods and have repeatedly denied that they were contraband goods but to date and despite their demands the defendant has refused to deliver them up to the plaintiffs or either of them and thereby converted the same to its own use and wrongfully deprived the plaintiffs of the same."
[p.132]
It is clear from paragraphs (3) and (8) above that the plaintiffs' cloths were seized on 31 March 1968, and were detained up to and inclusive of 1 April 1968, when the plaintiffs de
