YEBOAH v. KWAKYE

JUDGEMENT OF BENTSI-ENCHILL J.S.C.

The appeal in this case was, at the hearing, confined to the issue of the quantum of damages awarded by Mrs. Owusu Addo, circuit court judge (as she then was), for the loss of use of a vehicle wrongfully seized by the appellant.

The vehicle thus seized had previously been owned by the appellant; but he had sold it to one Yaw Kuma who, after paying only part of the price, had then sold the vehicle to the respondent. On 25 November 1966 the appellant seized the vehicle on the pretext, found by the court below to be unwarranted that, the title had not yet passed from him to the respondent's vendor.

The Kumasi police had earlier come to more or less the same conclusion when, following a complaint against the appellant by the respondent, they had investigated the matter. According to the police officer who was detailed to investigate the complaint and who gave evidence as the second witness for the appellant, the appellant had in consequence been told to look to Kuma for payment of the balance due to him and had been ordered to bring the vehicle to the police station for return to the respondent who was found to have purchased it properly from Kuma. The appellant accordingly took the vehicle to the police station in Kumasi on 11 January 1967. As the appellant was not there at the time, it was decided to keep the vehicle at the police station for handing over to the respondent by the police themselves when he turned up. The vehicle had since remained at the police station because the respondent could no longer be traced. Investigation revealed that he had travelled to Abidjan, and the appellant, when approached to come and take the vehicle, refused to do so because the respondent had already sued him.

The learned trial judge held that the respondent was entitled to claim for the full value of the vehicle plus any consequential loss of profit arising from the seizure. And she awarded the respondent by way of damages for conversion, as claimed, the unchallenged full market value of the vehicle and, in addition, the sum of ¢1,560.00 being the consequential loss of profit at the rate of ¢20.00 per day for a period of [p.41] three months (excluding Sundays) reckoned from the date of seizure. Why she fixed upon three months is not explained.

In grounds three and four of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant's earlier counsel in the court below, this award for consequential loss of profits was challenged in the following