PETER ANKOMAH v. CITY INVESTMENT COMPANY
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)
- ANSAH JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- BONNIE JSC
- BAMFO(MRS) JSC
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Supreme Court, per Dotse JSC, considered an appeal arising from a High Court case in which the plaintiff sought delivery up or value of a Mitsubishi saloon car (GR 9185 G) and a refrigerator seized by the Deputy Sheriff during execution of a judgment against the plaintiffs wife, plus damages for detention and alleged loss of use. The High Court awarded replacement value and daily loss-of-use damages at reduced rates while excluding weekends and holidays and ordering taxation; the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs appeal, classifying the loss-of-use claim as special damages requiring strict proof and affirming nominal damages. In the Supreme Court, the Court explained detinue permits return/value and damages for detention and held that loss-of-use damages are generally recoverable only where the chattel suffers actual wrongful damage, which was not established. While dismissing the appeal, the Court modified the orders to include weekends and public holidays in the loss-of-use calculation and set aside the taxation order.
DOTSE JSC:
The facts in this appeal admit of no controversy whatsoever. The wife of the plaintiff/appellant/appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, defaulted in the repayment of loans he took from the defendants/respondents/respondent hereinafter referred to as the defendant. As a result of this default, the defendants instituted action against the wife of the plaintiff and obtained judgment against her.
It was in the course of the execution of the judgment that the defendants caused the Deputy Sheriff to attach items which belonged to the plaintiff from their matrimonial home. The items of property seized from the plaintiff were a Mitsubishi car and a deep freezer. Following the failure of the defendants to return the said items to the plaintiff upon repeated demands, the plaintiff instituted an action in the High Court against the defendants. In view of the issues raised in this appeal, which hinged on what constitutes General and Special damages, it is considered worthwhile to produce in detail the entire reliefs that the plaintiff claimed against the defendants.
“Delivery up of Mitsubishi Saloon car with registration number GR 9185 G unlawfully caused by the defendants to be seized by the Sheriff or the value of the said car and damages for its detention. Delivery up of one refrigerator unlawfully caused by the defendants to be seized by the Sheriff on execution or the value thereof and damages for its detention.”
In a supporting statement of claim, the plaintiff provided the particulars of damages in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim as follows:
“The plaintiff has since the seizure of the car and the refrigerator demanded their return but the defendants have refused to cause their return or delivery up with the consequence that the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.
Particulars of Damage
(i) Loss of use of the said car at ¢250,00 per day from 8th September 1997 and continuing
(ii) Cost of putting the vehicle in a good and road worthy condition.
(iii) Loss of use of the said refrigerator at ¢50,000.00 per day from 8th September 1997 and continuing
(iv) Cost of repair
And the plaintiff claims
An order for the delivery up of the said Mitsubishi Car No. GR 9185 G and the refrigerator, or payment of their respective values”.
HIGH COURT DECISION
After protracted and delayed proceedings, the trial High Court delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiff as follows:
“I now proceed to deal with damages. Plaintiff told the c