N. N. Est Metals Ltd v. Abdul Rashid Siba Dorashed
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR, ESQ
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Commercial Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana High Court, N. N. Est Metals Company sued its longtime business associate for failing to account after selling a Toyota Hilux Pickup. The company had delivered the Hilux to the Defendant to find a buyer under an arrangement priced at US$29,500. The Defendant sold the vehicle, paid US$12,000, and withheld the balance, later claiming no debt and suggesting any contract was with Dorashed Automobile Company. At trial, the Defendants admissions under crossexamination established the sales arrangement. The court held the agreed price was US$29,500, not US$33,000, and found US$17,500 outstanding, awarding interest at the 91day Tbill rate from 20 December 2016. Addressing allegations of falsification, the court found the Defendant forged DVLA transfer documents and a false letterhead to transfer ownership without authorization. Special damages for fraud were denied; general damages of GH2,000 and costs of GH2,000 were awarded.
Plaintiff claim the following reliefs endorsed on its writ issued against the Defendant: a. An order for the refund of the sum equivalent in cedis of US$21, 000 which is the outstanding balance for the fraudulent sale of the Toyota Hilux Pickup, the bona fide property of the Plaintiff.
b. Interest on the said sum of US$21, 000 from the 30th day of December, 2016 till date of final payment.
c. Damages for the act of fraud perpetuated against the Plaintiff by the Defendant d. Costs of this action Plaintiff claim that it delivered its Toyota Hilux Pickup vehicle at the cost of US$29, 500 for Defendant to find a buyer to purchase the vehicle.
To Plaintiff the vehicle was sold but Defendant has failed to account for the monies realized from the sale of the vehicle notwithstanding several demands made on him to do so.
Plaintiff further avers that upon a complaint made to the Police, Defendant admitted that he had sold the vehicle but the buyer had not yet paid for the vehicle.
And subsequent checks revealed that Defendant sold the vehicle for US$33, 000 and had been fully paid.
An amount of US$12, 000 was accordingly retrieved from the Defendant leaving an amount of US$21, 000 to be paid.
Plaintiff again avers that Defendant represented to the purchaser that he was the owner of the vehicle and thereby falsified documents relating to the sale of the vehicle as the DVLA form produced by Defendant show him as the owner of the vehicle.
It is on the above facts that Plaintiff claim the reliefs as set in the writ.
Defendant in his statement of defence denied the averments made by Plaintiff claiming that he does not owe Plaintiff.
And any claim of the existence of a contract was entered into between Plaintiff and a company called Dorashed Automobile company and accordingly contend that Plaintiff has sued the wrong person in court and therefore not entitled to its claim.
With the closure of pleadings the following issues were set down for determination: 1. Whether or not Defendant sold Toyota Hilux Pickup with chassis No. MROFR22G000742003, the property of the Plaintiff but failed to pay over the money to the Plaintiff.
2. Whether or not the Defendant falsified the letterhead of Plaintiff company and produced false information on the forms of the DVLA to third parties in order to sell the said vehicle and retain the proceeds at the time 3. Whether or not the Defendant did retain the proceeds of the sale of the Toyota Hilux Pickup.
4. Is the Plaintiff enti