SETH MENSAH VS RHEMA MOTORS & ERATRUCK

INTRODUCTION

On the 10th of November, 2017, the Plaintiff who describes himself as a businessman resident in Accra, caused a writ to be issued against the Defendants herein seeking the following reliefs from this Court.

a) Recovery of possession of Vehicles No GM 4456 and GM 4457

b) Damages for loss of use

c) Costs

Plaintiff’s case is that the 1st Defendant is a Ghanaian registered company which deals in the sale and servicing of trucks including Hohan Sino Trucks. The 2nd Defendant is also described as a Ghanaian registered company and the Principal of the 1st Defendant.

According to the Plaintiff, on the 10th of October, 2014, he purchased two 6 X 4 Honan Sino Trucks for a total amount of Two Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Six United States Dollars (USD$ 216,436.00.) from the 1st Defendant under a Conditional Sale Agreement tendered in evidence as Exhibit A.

Pursuant to the terms of Exhibit A, Plaintiff made an initial payment of Forty-Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty-Six United States Dollars (USD$ 42, 426.00.), as part payment for the said two vehicles. The said vehicles were however to remain in the name of the 1st Defendant per the terms of Exhibit A until Plaintiff had paid fully for same.

According to Plaintiff, after taking delivery of the vehicles, he continued to make payments as agreed. However, the 2nd Defendant, even though not a party to the agreement repossessed both vehicles from him on the 12th day of October, 2017.

Plaintiff says that the 2nd Defendant was aware of his beneficial interest in the vehicles as a result of Exhibit A as 2nd Defendant had, through one Mr. Tang Fusang, its Managing Director, been offering Plaintiff advice on the maintenance of the vehicles.

It is the case of Plaintiff that he had made payments amounting to about 93% of the total purchase price at the time the said vehicles were repossessed. It is for this reason that he is before this Court seeking the reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons.

1ST DEFENDANT’S CASE

1st Defendant admits selling the trucks in question to Plaintiff on the terms contained in Exhibit A. It says however that the said vehicles remained in the name of the 2nd Defendant even though it was agreed with the Plaintiff that the vehicles will be registered in its name (1st Defendant). 1st Defendant further admits receiving an amount of Forty-Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Twenty-Six United States Dollars (USD$ 42,426.00.) from Plaintiff as an initial depo