RAM RAJWANI vs ERIC JEFF OWUSU BOATENG & ANOR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE MILLS TETTEH (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendants for the wrongful seizure of his Peugeot car following a judgment against his son in a separate case. The court found that the seizure executed by the defendants was unlawful as it was not carried out by a court official but by unauthorized persons, thereby violating the judicial process. The court awarded the plaintiff general and specific damages and compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle.
On 8th February 2013, the plaintiffs herein sued defendants claiming as follows:
a) General and specific damages for the wrongful seizure of his Peugeot saloon car with reg. no, GR4746 D.
b) Loss of use of GHC50. 00 per day till day of recovery of vehicle with registration number GR 4746D and costs.
The statement of claim attached to the writ stated that on the 13th March 2013, Vickram Rajwani son of the plaintiff who was in charge of plaintiffs Peugeot saloon car was involved in an accident with 1st defendants Toyota Corolla with registration number GR2581-10 being driven by 2nd defendant.
On 11/8/11 the defendants instituted an action against his son and the previous owners of the vehicle Akan Printing Press in the Circuit Ct.
The statement of claim submitted that the suit instituted at the instance of the defendants was entitled Eric Jeff Owusu Boateng and ORS. V. Akan Printing Press and ORS.
Judgment in this case was entered against son of the plaintiff herein in the sum of GHC 21, 000 on May 28th 2012. On 20/12/12, according to the statement of claim, plaintiff’s son filed a stay of execution and payment of judgment debt by instalment, but same was dismissed on 9/1/13. Plaintiff stated that his son then filed a notice of Appeal against the dismissal of the motion for stay of execution and payment of judgment debt by instalments on 14/1/13 and filed another notice for stay of execution in the court of Appeal on 21/1/13. On the same day bailiffs and Police came to carry out execution in his house.
The Plaintiff stated that the Police and Bailiff were accompanied by the defendant and their lawyer to carry out the execution.
The plaintiff submitted that when the motion paper filed in the court of Appeal was brought to the attention of the Police, he and the bailiff aborted the execution and left the scene.
Plaintiff averred that the defendants and their lawyer went ahead and towed his vehicle with registration number GR4746 D to the Circuit Court premises whilst the key to the vehicle was still with him.
At the time of filing this suit, plaintiff had not been able to retrieve his vehicle as the court officials claimed they did not know under what circumstances the vehicle was brought to the court premises especially when the key to the vehicle was still with the plaintiff.
Following from the facts stated above, the plaintiff submitted that the seizure of his Vehicle was wrongful, that as a result of the wrongful seizure he lost the use of his v