JUDGMENT

PROF. MENSA-BONSU, JSC:-

My Lords, this is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kumasi dated 25th July, 2024.

A deal well meant to aid a friend gone awry

An unwise lending to share a benefit slighted

The wrath and ingratitude of a former friend ignited

Leaving a benefactor to be swatted like a fly.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

In 2019, the plaintiff /appellant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff/respondent) deposited its wood boiler, through its Managing Director, (hereinafter referred to as Managing-Director (M-D)), at the premises of the 1st/defendant, with tacit permission of one of its officials. Although M-D insisted the official he dealt with was the Managing Director of 1st defendant, the status of the official was in some doubt as he was also referred to as ‘Caretaker’ of the premises. A year later in 2020, the plaintiff/respondent was again allowed by the same official (caretaker of the premises) of the 1st defendant/appellant, to place a ten-ton forklift on the same 1st defendant’s premises.

Sometime later the plaintiff/respondent received information from the official (caretaker) of the 1st defendant to remove all items placed on the premises of the 1st defendant, as the company intended to sell off its properties. Upon receiving the said information, the plaintiff/respondent immediately removed the forklift from the premises, but left the wood boiler behind as, according to him, that required technology and expertise in order to dismantle it.

The contract between 1st defendant and a third party was signed on 28th January, 2021. In June 2021, the MD of plaintiff/respondent went to the premises, ostensibly to remove the wood boiler, and he found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants/appellants had dismantled and damaged the wood boiler beyond use. The explanation he received was that having purchased the property from the 1st defendant they, the 2nd and 3rd defendants/appellants, needed the space to place their own equipment. The plaintiff/respondent contended that the defendants/appellants, were aware that the wood boiler belonged to his company, but never contacted him before causing damage to its wood-boiler. The M-D also contended that the wood boiler was purchased at 200,000 Euros and that the defendant/appellants’ action in causing damage to the wood boiler without the company’s knowledge, consent and authority, was unlawful, wrongful and without justification. Further, that