SASU v. NYADUALAH
November 20, 1972
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- APALOO
- AMISSAH
- SOWAH JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
November 20, 1972
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Apaloo J.A., with Amissah J.A. and Sowah J.A. concurring, determined an appeal over a seized Mercedes Benz bus SG 5163. The respondent, a Fire Services employee, bought the bus from Nigerian vendor Agbejule for N a22,600, investing in repairs and turning to the appellanta car dealerfor funds, including N a2976.20 itemised expenses and further payments to Agbejule. While hospitalised, the respondents brother, Emmanuel Seth Acquah, signed a hire0purchase agreement with the appellant, and the respondent later countersigned as guarantor. The lower court found the seizure wrongful, ordering return or payment of value and awarding damages. On appeal, the appellant argued the agreement bound the respondent and that estoppel prevented denial of it. Apaloo J.A. rejected estoppel, held the arrangement created only a debtor0creditor relationship without any right in rem to repossess, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.
This appeal is from the decision of his honour Judge Sampson and relates to the seizure of a Mercedes Benz bus by the appellant. There was considerable divergence between the appellant and the respondent on the facts in the court below. That conflict was resolved in favour of the respondent. The learned judge's resolution of the facts was not contested before us. The complaint which the appellant makes and on the basis of which he invited us to reverse the decision was one of the law. To determine to what extent it is well or ill founded, it is necessary to relate the facts which the learned judge accepted.
[p.223]
Some time in December 1968, a Nigerian national by the name of Agbejule advertised for sale in the newspapers, a Mercedes Benz bus No. SG 5163 which he owned. The respondent who was then in the employ of the Fire Services, was minded of purchasing this vehicle. He therefore approached Agbejule and offered to buy the bus. This offer was accepted and the vehicle was sold to him for an aggregate sum of N¢2,600. When the respondent made a part-payment of N¢,1,200, the vehicle was released to him. There was some difference between the respondent and his vendor as to the precise terms of the contract and at some stage, Agbejule caused this vehicle to be seized by the police. The vehicle was retrieved by the respondent upon payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price. The respondent sued Agbejule in this action as the second defendant and sought to recover damages against him but the learned judge found for him. Before us, neither side made any point of his success in the action and the role he played in this case is of little relevance to the question debated in this appeal.
When, as I said the respondent took delivery of the bus, he discovered that it was not roadworthy and needed certain repairs before it could be put on the road. For this purpose, he delivered the bus to a fitter and contracted with him to put right such defects as were found on it. He paid for this. After making these expenses, the respondent ran out of funds. He still needed money to pay for licensing, insurance, new tyres and the like. He therefore fell on the appellant for this. The latter described himself as a "car dealer" and appears to be some one with whom the respondent was acquainted. The appellant promised to oblige. Before the repairs were done with, the respondent took ill and was admitted at the hospital. While he was still there