Nana Akakli IV v. G.P.R.T.U Regional Secretariat and Anor
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In 2008, a hire-purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant enabled the plaintiff to acquire a bus. Following disputes over alleged defaults, the bus was impounded by the 2nd defendant. The court declared the hire-purchase agreement valid, recognized the plaintiff as the bona fide owner after he completed payments, ruled the bus's seizure as wrongful, and awarded damages for lost sales. The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.
The 1st and 2nd defendants entered into an agreement whereby he 2nd defendant gave the 1st defendant some number of buses to be sold to its members on hire purchase.
This was in 2008. The plaintiff acquired one of these buses on hire-purchase.
By the hire-purchase agreement the plaintiff was required to complete payment of the cost of bus within 36 months.
It was agreed between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff that the latter effected payment of GHS 1, 400. 00 per months.
In the course of time the 2nd defendant acting upon a list of defaulters given to it by the 1st defendant, embarked on a nationwide exercise and impounded the vehicle which the plaintiff acquired through the hire-purchase.
The ensuing misunderstanding has brought the parties to court.
The plaintiff therefore asked for the following reliefs: -1. A declaration that the hire purchase agreement of July 2008 between the plaintiff and defendants was valid, legal and binding on the parties.
2. A declaration of bona fide ownership, interest and title to the said vehicle in the plaintiff.
3. A declaration that the defendants’ seizure of the bus was wrongful, fraudulent and illegal.
4. An order to the defendants releasing the said bus to the plaintiff and in serviceable and roadworthiness condition, including repair of all mechanical, physical damages caused by the defendants and their agents to the front fenders, the windscreen or in the alternative costs for the repair of all damages on the bus.
5. Recovery of lost daily sales from 21st December, 2011 at GHS240. 00 per day with interest to the date of final release of the bus pursuant to the illegal seizure.
6. Permanent injunction against the defendants, their assigns, workmen, agents, etc, from further interference with plaintiff’s bona fide ownership in the bus.
7. Recovery of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of injuries suffered by the bus driver.
8. Special damages.
9. Costs.
The defendants have also in a counterclaim asked for: a. A declaration that the plaintiff for failing to show up with receipts of all due payments to reclaim the bus thereby impliedly breached and resiled from the agreement.
b. General damages for breach of contract.
c. General damages for false complaint to the police leading to the arrest, embarrassment and inconveniences suffered by the leadership of the 2nd defendant.
The case of the plaintiff is that on the 14th July, 2008, he entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the G