SPORTNET GHANA VS UNIVERSAL MOTORS LTD
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence and breach of contract after experiencing issues with their vehicle post-repairs. The court dismissed the case, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence or any breach of contract, and thus was not entitled to any damages.
On the 28th April, 2016, I dismissed the case of the plaintiff and reserved my reasons which I now proceed to give.
The plaintiff in this action asked for the following reliefs;
a. Declaration that the defendant was negligent in the provision of services to the plaintiff
b. An order that genuine replacement parts should be used to rectify faults on the plaintiff’s vehicle
c. An order that the defendant should rectify the faults on the plaintiff’s Volkswagen Passat car
d. Damages for breach of contract.
e. Damages for loss of use of vehicle.
f. General damages.
The case of the plaintiff is that on the 28th January, 2014, it took its vehicle No.ER6980-X to the defendant for repairs. Among the repairs to be effected by the defendant was stated as:
a. Elimination of noise underneath vehicle
b. Stabilizer links
c. Track rod
d. Inner CV joint left and right
e. Front and rear brake pads
f. Rear right door strim
g. Right door glass
The plaintiff contended that the repairs was assessed at GHS5,582.67 out of which it paid GHS3,300.00 and issued 2 post-dated cheques to cover the remaining balance. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the completion of the repair works, he found out that the defendant used imitated parts in repairing its vehicle. It therefore complained to officers of the defendant.
On the 14th February, 2014, the plaintiff contended that it was notified to pick its vehicle. Upon a test drive on a 100 metre stretch, the plaintiff contended that some noise were heard under the vehicle.
Plaintiff further contended that the vehicle was detained for further works to be done on it for the noise to be corrected. On the 21st February, 2014, the plaintiff contended further that the defendant invited the plaintiff to take delivery of the vehicle. Having taken delivery, the plaintiff contends that on the 23rd February, 2014, the Managing Director of the plaintiff, who was then driving the vehicle from church to his house, heard some noise underneath the vehicle. When he stopped and checked, it was detected that 3 out of the 5 wheel nuts had come out leaving 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that this resulted in damage to the 3 wheel nuts, rims and inner wheels of the car.
The plaintiff therefore towed the vehicle to the defendant’s premises and left the vehicle there. On the following Monday the 24th February, 2014, the plaintiff contended that its Managing Director went to the offices of the defendant company and lodged a formal comp