NANA YAW OPARE ADDO v. WESTERN AUTOMOBILE

JUDGMENT

On 20th January 2014, the Plaintiff filed an amended writ of summons and statement of claim in which he claimed against the Defendant, the following reliefs:

a. General Damages

b. Special Damages of GH¢15,000.00

c. Loss of use d. Costs

It was the Plaintiff’s case as set out in his Statement of Claim that on 30th June 2011, he delivered his Nissan Pathfinder vehicle to the Defendant’s garage for repair works which included straightening, pulling and balancing, spraying among others. On the promise of the vehicle being fixed within 4 weeks, he paid a deposit of GH¢2,500.00.

He contended that the Defendant was unable to fix the vehicle in the scheduled time and as a result requested for an extension of time within which to complete repairs. He said when he went for the vehicle; he found out that the sun roof which was to have been repaired by the Defendant was still faulty. In the end he took the vehicle away only to find that the vehicle was not performing up to standard. It was his contention that it later came to his notice that the vehicle whilst in Defendant’s custody had been flooded and that accounted for its malfunctioning. He therefore had to expend more sums of money to have the electrical works and engine working again to his satisfaction.

The Defendant in its Amended Statement of Defence filed on 29th June 2015 denied the Plaintiff’s claim saying that the vehicle was not motorable in the first instance. The Defendant stated that the vehicle was a write off and that it was only agreed that the Defendant was to straighten, carry out pulling and balancing, filling and spraying and that this was to cost GH¢2,950.00. The Defendant denied being contracted to work on the engine and maintained that the Plaintiff was not entitled to his claim.

The following were set down as issues for trial:

1. Whether or not Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a motorable condition at the time of delivery to the Defendant?

2. Whether or not the Defendant breached the agreed period for the repairs to the vehicle?

3. Whether or not the vehicle was inundated while in the custody of the Defendant?

4. Whether or not the vehicle was delivered to the Plaintiff in a far worse and damaged condition than he sent it to the Defendant?

5. Whether or not the Plaintiff incurred additional costs in repairing the damage occasioned by the breach of the Defendant’s obligation?

6. Whether or not the Plaintiff has suffered loss?

7. Whether or not Plaintiff was made aware