Tamakloe Vrs Ernest [2022] GHADC 139 (17 November 2022)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT BIBIANI ON THURSDAY THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP PETER BANOE DAPILEH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT NO. A2/08/23 Plaintiff-Present Defendant- Present DORCAS TAMAKLOE VS. ERNEST JUDGMENT The plaintiff action against the defendant is for the following reliefs. a. Recovery of cash the sum of Five thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵5,000.00) being cost of a Tricycle (Pragia) the defendant sold to the plaintiff after which the plaintiff realized that the machine was faulty and had same returned to the defendant, but the defendant has refused to refund the money to the plaintiff despite repeated demands three (3) months ago. b. Interest on the amount in claim “A” at the prevailing Bank rate from 2nd of June,2022 to the date of judgment. c. Any further orders as the honourable court may deem fit and appropriate. The case for the plaintiff is that she bought a motor tricycle from the defendant for cash the sum of GHC5,000.00. that after having taken delivery of same and it was given in to his brother PW1 who used it for some few weeks, he noticed that the vehicle was faulty and so same was returned to the defendant for a refund, but he has since refused to do so. The plaintiff however admitted that when she expressed interest in buying the said vehicle, the defendant told her that the machine was faulty especially the engine and so he replaced same before he purchased it. The plaintiff only witness Na David PW1, told the court that it was the defendant who taught him how to ride a motor tricycle. That it was while he was still in his apprenticeship that the defendant intended selling the said tricycle to enable him instead secure a job with the mines. On hearing this, he informed plaintiff her sister to purchase same for him and she did so for cash the sum of GHC5,000.000. He however also told the court that before the purchase of the tricycle, the defendant had told them that only problem with the motor tricycle was the engine. That they however went ahead and purchased same. But after taking delivery of same, he couldn’t work with it and had to return same to the defendant for refund, but the defendant refused saying he could only do so after selling same out. The defendant then also opened his defence, testified without calling any witness. It is his evidence that indeed he sold the motor tricycle to the plaintiff at GHC5,000.00. That before he sold the vehicle to them, he told the plaintiff and PW1 that the engine block of the tricycle had a problem, yet they still expressed interest. So therefore, after the money was paid to him, he went with PW1, plaintiff brother to a spare parts shop and bought all the spare necessary for fixing the machine as identified by a mechanic and same were fixed before the vehicle was handed over to the plaintiff and her brother. That after the machine was with them for three (3) weeks on the 21-06-2022, the plaintiff called to inform him that her brother PW1 was complaining that he was finding some challenges with same and for which reason they wanted him to take back same and sell. But later, it turned out that the plaintiff instead wanted him to refund the money paid for the machine but he refused and instead told her to wait until same had been sold out. After a careful perusing and analyzing the evidence before me, the only issue for this court to determine is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to a refund. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witness PW1 both point to the fact that, they were both aware of the state of the motor tricycle before proceeding to purchase same. In fact, both of them do agree that when they expressed interest in buying same, the defendant disclosed to them the state of the vehicle yet they went ahead and bought same. This being the case once there was full disclosure yet they went ahead and bought same and it was delivered to them, it becomes their property and they cannot return same to the defendant to ask for refund. This is because, the defendant had described the nature of the motor tricycle to them before the sale and they yet went ahead and purchased same. By purchasing same not only was the physical item delivered to them but title to same was equally delivered. See section 8,13 and 18 of Act 137. From the evidence, the defendant cannot be faulted, he told the court that the condition of the motor tricycle was made known to the plaintiff and the brother PW1 before they still went ahead and purchased it. There is nothing to suggest that he misrepresented the facts as to the state of the vehicle to the plaintiff. Therefore, once he sold and transferred title to the plaintiff, it is hers and she can choose to do as pleases. Judgment is therefore entered against the plaintiff as her action against the defendant fails. No award as to cost. SGD. PETER BANOE DAPILEH (DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) 4