JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J. A.
The appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court against him in this case. He has therefore appealed to this honourable court for redress. I proceed now to examine the cause of his complaint in order to determine whether he is deserving of our assistance.
The appellant, as plaintiff, brought this action against the respondents for wrongful seizure of a vehicle. He had entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the respondents to purchase this vehicle, a seven-ton Albion lorry registered No. AT 7889. The date of the agreement, which was exhibited, is 4 August 1966. At the time it was entered into the currency in use was the old cedi. In the course of the relationship of owner and hirer arising from the agreement the currency [p.178] was changed to the new cedi. As a result the moneys stipulated under the agreement and paid are sometimes quoted in the record of proceedings in old cedis and at other times in new cedis. For convenience I shall use new cedis throughout this judgment. According to the terms of the agreement the hire-purchase price of the vehicle was N¢12,400. This was to be paid off by a deposit of N¢2,600, followed by fourteen monthly instalments of N¢700 each. The deposit was paid in two lots of N¢2,500 and N¢100. Thereafter the appellant paid five of the monthly instalments, the last being evidenced by a receipt dated 30 March 1967 which acknowledged payment for the January-February instalment. No further payment was made until 19 July 1967. By then the respondents had seized the vehicle. But after the payment of N¢610 in July, the vehicle was apparently released and thereafter further instalments were paid but of reduced amounts. From 1 January 1968 there were three payments of N¢500 covering the months of January, February and March that year. Then a payment of N¢220 was made in June being described as part payment for April, one of N¢273 in February 1969; the last instalment which was made in March 1969 was for N¢140. The respondents had some time in October 1968 seized the vehicle a second time. They seized it for the third and final time in April 1969 and it was this seizure which led to this action.
The case of the appellant was that by the time of the final seizure he had paid more than half of the hire-purchase price of the vehicle. Therefore, by virtue of section 69 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), the respondents were not entitled to seize the vehicle without recourse to the
