STEPHEN OWUSU v. PITSEA WAYS CO. LTD. & ANOTHER
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SENYO DZAMEFE, J.A (PRESIDING)
- P. BRIGHT MENSAH, J.A.
- JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS.) J.A
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal judgment, authored by Bartels-Kodwo J.A., concerns Stephen Owusus purchase of a Toyota Corolla (GS 1801-12) from Royal Micro Finance (1st Appellant), represented by its Managing Director (2nd Appellant). Owusu bought the vehicle in July 2013 for GH13,800, relying on Appellants representations and DVLA records; ownership was transferred into his name. On 12 August 2013, he was stopped by Daniel Alemawor, claiming the car was stolen from original owner, Ebenezer Adu-Awuah. The Sakumono Police investigated, and the car was released to Alemawor as Adu-Awuahs representative. The High Court granted Owusu judgment, and Appellants appealed on multiple grounds including weight of evidence, ownership, agency, and misrepresentation. The Court of Appeal found a missing link between Adu-Awuahs import and Lazal Companys title; Appellants vendor admitted DVLA registration was procured with goro boys. Applying nemo dat and section 10 of the Sale of Goods Act, the court held Appellants lacked title and their sale was tainted by fraud. The appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment affirmed; the 2nd Appellant was properly joined due to dishonest conduct.
BARTELS-KODWO (MRS.) J.A.
INTRODUCTION
The Defendants/Appellants (herein after the Appellants) were sued in the High Court, Commercial Division by the Plaintiff/Respondent (herein after the Respondent), for the following reliefs:
1. An order for the recovery of the sum of Ghc13,800.00 being the purchase price of the Toyota Corolla Salon Vehicle with registration No.GS 1801-12 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants under a Contract of Sale made between the parties sometime in July, 2013.
2. Interest on the sum of Ghc13,800.00 calculated at the prevailing bank rate.
3. Damages for breach of contract.
4. Costs occasioned by this action.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS.
The Respondent purchased the vehicle in issue from the Appellants by an oral contract of sale in July, 2013 at the price of Ghc 13,800.00. The 1st Appellant is a company engaged in Micro Finance and the sale of cars with the 2nd Appellant as its Managing Director. Respondent states that the 2nd Appellant had represented to him that the vehicle was the property of the 1st Appellant Company. Based on that representation which was supported by their documentation as emanating from the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) he went to the DVLA with the Appellants’ officers and had effected the transfer of the vehicle or its ownership into his name.
However, on the 12th of August, 2013 whilst driving the vehicle he was confronted and stopped in traffic by a Claimant who accused him of having stolen the vehicle. The matter was reported to the Sakumono Police who invited the 2nd Appellant to help in their investigations. According to the Respondent’s case the 2nd Appellant could not prove to the Police that the vehicle belonged to the 1st Appellant as he had been made to believe. Consequently, the Police, based on their investigations gave out the vehicle to the Claimant. It is upon this that the Respondent sued the Appellants at the trial Court for a return of his money. He contended that the sale was based on fraud since the representation made to him that the appellants owned the vehicle was untrue when they knew to the contrary that they did not. He had consequently lost all his end of service benefits which he had invested in the vehicle to use for car hire purposes.
The Appellants disagreed with him that the sale was tainted with fraud. It is their case that the Respondent went with their officers to the DVLA offices and ascertained for himself through a search that the ownership of the v