TRIL GHANA LIMITED v. AKWASI OSEI BOATENG
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant for detinue and conversion of goods/machinery intended for a failed partnership. Despite the defendant's initial involvement, they failed to participate in court proceedings leading to the striking out of their defense. The court found that while the goods were lawfully moved initially, the defendant wrongfully detained them. The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence per the civil burden of proof standards. The court ordered the return of the goods or their monetary value and awarded general damages and costs to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
By a writ of summons filed against the defendant on the 25th June, 2015 the plaintiff sought the following reliefs:
a) A declaration that the failure of the defendant to return the chattels or goods and the continuous use of the same without the consent of the plaintiff after a demand had been made amount to the tort of detinue and conversion.
b) An order for the immediate return of the plaintiff’s chattels\goods or in the alternative the market values of the said chattels\goods
c) General damages for unlawful detention and conversion
d) Any other relief as the justice of the case requires.
Appearance was entered on behalf of the Defendant by their solicitor on the 6th of July 2015.He later filed a statement of defense where he denied liability to the plaintiff’s claim.
After unsuccessful attempts at settlement, the following issues were set down for trial namely:
Whether or not the Defendant’s failure to handover the plaintiff’s chattel\goods to him amount to the tort of detinue or conversion?
Whether or not the Defendant has been using the Plaintiff’s chattel\goods without Plaintiff’s consent?
Whether or not the plaintiff is indebted to the Defendant the sum of Twenty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Four Ghana cedis, Eighty-four pesewas (¢29, 924.84)?
Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to all the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons?
It is observed that per the Court’s records, the Defendant was duly served with hearing notices to attend court for the trial to commence but he failed to show up. This is evidenced by some of the affidavits of service sworn on 15/03/2018 and 12/04/2018.
The defendant also failed to comply with the orders of the court to file his witness statement. On 24/05/2018, the court consequently invoked Order 32 rule 7A of the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 2014, CI 87 and struck out the defence of the defendant.
With the continuous absence of the Defendant, the court had no option than to proceed with the case under order 36 rule 1(2)(a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, CI 47. It states:
Rule 1(2) where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may;
a. Where the plaintiff attends and the defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim, if any, and allow the plaintiff to prove the claim.
On the basis of the rule, the plaintiff was allowed to prove its claim on the 24/05/2018. The Plaintiff testified through its Managing D