Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 23, 2014
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff, suing per his lawful attorney, Isaac Asuming, is seeking a declaratory relief to the effect that there is a binding contract between him and the 1st Defendant. He is further seeking an order directing the 2nd Defendant to remove the blockage on Plaintiff’s accounts and release an amount of thirty-two thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢ 32,000.00) to the Plaintiff as well as loss of use of Plaintiff’s money.
The Defendants also counterclaimed for these reliefs;
i. A declaration that the Plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented facts known to him in order to convince the Defendants to purchase the vehicle.
ii. A declaration that Defendants are not bound by the agreement for the purchase of the vehicle, same having been vitiated by fraud.
iii. A declaration that the Plaintiff was under a legal obligation to make an honest disclosure of the state of the vehicle he was selling.
iv. A declaration that the Plaintiff has acted fraudulently and therefore cannot benefit or profit from his fraud.
v. Damages for subjecting 1st Defendant to inconvenience and great financial expense in paying for transportation.
vi. Damages for exposing 1st Defendant to insults, defamatory threats and harassment from Plaintiff’s lawyer
vii. Compensation for subjecting 1st Defendant to inconvenience
viii. An order that Plaintiff shall bear the full cost incurred by defendants in defending the matter.
ix. Other reliefs as this honourable court shall deem fit in the circumstances.
After an unsuccessful pre-trial, six issues were set down for trial. These are:
1. Whether or not the Toyota Highlander was fit for the purpose for which the 1st Defendant required it at the time of purchase?
2. Whether or not the Plaintiff had made fraudulent misrepresentations to the 1st Defendant about the state of the vehicle?
3. Whether or not there was a binding contract between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant for the purchase of the vehicle?
4. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant?
5. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to his claims?
6. Whether or not the 1st Defendant is entitled to her counterclaim?
At the commencement of the evidence of the Plaintiff, his lawful attorney tendered in evidence a power of attorney dated 26/02/2013 and stamped on 27/02/2013 in support of his capacity to sue as exhibit A. This document was massacred in cross-examination by counsel for the Defendants. His position was that the suit itself was filed on 09/0
AI Generated Summary
Isaac Asuming, acting as the lawful attorney of the plaintiff, brought a High Court action seeking a declaration of a binding contract with the 1st Defendant arising from a sale of a Toyota Highlander, and an order directing the 2nd Defendant to remove a blockage on the plaintiff’s accounts and release GH¢32,000 plus compensation for loss of use. The defendants counterclaimed alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking declarations that the agreement was vitiated and pursuing damages for inconvenience and harassment. Although six issues were initially set for trial, the proceedings turned on the attorney’s capacity to sue: the power of attorney was executed in February 2013, months after the writ was filed in July 2012. Relying on Order 4 rule 1(1), the Powers of Attorney Act, and authorities including Dzanku v Afalenu, Youhana v Abboud, Yorkwa v Duah, Gorden v Essien, and Akrong v Bulley, the court held the plaintiff lacked capacity at filing, dismissed the claim without reaching the merits, declined to entertain the counterclaim due to invalid service on an unauthorized person, and awarded costs of GH¢1000 against the plaintiff.