MRS GINA BLAY vs PHC MOTORS LTD & ANOR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JENNIFER DODOO (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff financed the purchase of a TATA Tipper Truck for a customer who failed to make payments, leading to repossession of the vehicle. The Defendant, claiming to execute a judgment, seized the truck. The Plaintiff contested the seizure, arguing ownership confirmed by DVLA records. The court reviewed evidence, including testimony from a DVLA official and documents showing the Plaintiff as the registered owner. The Defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to counter this claim. The court upheld the Plaintiff's ownership, ordered the release of the vehicle, and awarded costs against the Defendant.
The Plaintiff in this suit has claimed ownership of a vehicle which the Defendant had seized in execution of a prior judgment.
The Plaintiff as Claimant had filed an affidavit of interest in which its representative had stated as follows:
1. I am the deponent hereto and an accounts officer of the Claimant whose authority I have to depose to the matters contained in this affidavit.
2. By an arrangement between the Defendant and the Claimant, the Claimant financed the purchase of a TATA Tipper Truck with registration number GM 9128-13 from the Defendant by one Mr. Baah Appiah Kubi a customer of the Defendant.
3. Upon the payment of the purchase price by the Claimant, the Defendant caused ownership of the vehicle to be transferred to the Claimant.
Exhibit TLG 1 Documents from the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA)showing transfer of ownership from the Defendant to the Claimant.
4. Under an agreement between Mr. Kubi and the Claimant, Mr. Kubi was required to make monthly instalments to the Claimant to repay the purchase price for the vehicle.
5. In accordance with the terms of the agreement between Mr. Appiah and the Claimant when Mr. Appiah failed to make payments as agreed, the Claimant repossessed the vehicle.
6. The Claimant returned the vehicle to the Defendant’s premises with the understanding that the Defendant would resell it on the Claimant’s behalf.
7. I am advised that despite having returned the vehicle to the Defendant, the vehicle has remained the property of the Claimant.
The Defendant opposed the instant claim stating at paragraph 5 of her affidavit in answer to the Claimant’s claim as follows: The Claimant’s claim is a sham calculated to aid the Judgment Debtor to avoid its liabilities for the reasons stated hereunder: a. The documents relied upon by the Claimant rather show that the vehicle originally belonged to Tata Africa Holdings (Ghana) Limited and not the Defendant/Judgment debtor PHC as alleged by the Claimant.
b. The authenticity of the DVLA Form A attached to the Claimant’s affidavit is doubtful in that the form has not been fully completed as demanded by the Driver And Vehicle Licensing Authority.
Please find attached Exhibit ‘GAB” in support of the contention.
c. The documents attached to the affidavit of claim show that the ownership of the vehicle was purportedly transferred to the Claimant even before it had gone through customs clearance.
d. The Claimant’s documents also rather show that the vehic