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
2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed the case where the plaintiff sued for the return or value of chattels wrongfully seized by the defendants and for damages for their detention. The High Court awarded damages, but the plaintiff was not satisfied and appealed, arguing that the damages for loss of use should be considered general damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed this, and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not prove actual damage to the chattels and thus was not entitled to damages for loss of use. The court upheld that the plaintiff is only entitled to the replacement value of the chattels but extended the loss of use damages to cover weekends and public holidays.
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