SAMUEL AWUAH DANKWA v. ALLIANCE MOTORS GHANA LTD & ORS
February 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
February 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this interlocutory ruling, Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo considered Samuel Awuahs application for an interim mandatory injunction to continue using a Jaguar F-PACE (GM 644-16) that the 1st Defendant had provided as a courtesy vehicle while his Land Rover Discovery 4 HSE was being repaired. The parties executed a courtesy vehicle agreement on January 11, 2019 requiring return of the Jaguar within 24 hours after notice of completed repairs. The 1st Defendant notified Awuah by email on January 14, 2019 and requested collection by January 18, but Awuah refused, citing repeated breakdowns of the Land Rover and fear for his safety. Applying the established test for interlocutory injunctions, the court found no legal or equitable right in the Jaguar, no nexus to the underlying warranty and defect claims, and that enforcing the clear contract terms and the Respondents business needs outweighed the Applicants speculative concerns. The application was refused and costs of GH2,000 were awarded to the 1st Defendant.
RULING
i. Introduction:
[1] The Plaintiff issued a Writ of Summons against the Defendants on June 16, 2017 for certain reliefs endorsed thereon. Among the reliefs the Plaintiff is seeking are:
i) A declaration that the brand new Land Rover Discovery 4 HSE which the Plaintiff bought from the 1st Defendant on the 10th day of April 2014 has a manufacturer defect and therefore same is not fit for the purpose for which same was bought.
ii) A declaration that the 1st Defendant has breached the warranty agreement on the vehicle sold to the Plaintiff.
[2] The Plaintiff is also seeking an order directed at the 1st Defendant to replace the said vehicle with a brand new one and against the 2nd Defendant the Plaintiff seeks an “interim order of injunction directed at the 2nd Defendant to restrain it from receiving the monthly repayment on the said vehicle from the Plaintiff until the final determination of this suit”.
[3] Pleadings have closed and the parties have filed their witness statements pursuant to the Court’s orders made after the application for directions was taken. The mandatory Case Management Conference is yet to be conducted. Now, the Plaintiff has brought the instant application for an interim order of mandatory injunction against the 1st Defendant.
[4] It is noted that Order 25 r 1 of CI 47 stipulates that the court may grant an injunction by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so, and the order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the court considers just. In deciding whether or not to grant an order of interlocutory injunction it has been held that the court would consider the justness and convenience of the order[1].
[5] Drawing on the provision of the law cited herein, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant to whom I refer simply as the Applicant has filed in this court on January 21, 2019, an application praying for:
“… an interim order of mandatory injunction compelling the 1st Defendant/Respondent to deliver to the Applicant, Courtesy Vehicle Jaguar F-PACE with registration number GM 644-16, which is currently in possession of the Applicant, for his use until the final determination of the suit upon the grounds set out in the accompanying affidavit and for any other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem meet”.
ii. The case of Plaintiff/Applicant
[6] The case of the Plaintiff/Applicant as per the supporting