The learned trial-Judge, in my view, came to a correct decision in decreeing that the appellant was not entitled to be credited with the value of the 383 bags of cocoa, and also not entitled to any commission on such produce. However, with due respect, the learned trial-Judge erred on the law upon which he grounded his decision. He did not concede that the moment the appellant bought any cocoa in the course of his employment as factor for the respondents, the respondents became vested with the ownership of it. It is my opinion that, having regard to the management and control which the respondents had over the appellant in the discharge of his duties, there existed between the parties the relationship of master and servant. Assuming therefore, as the learned trial-Judge did, that the appellant did buy the 383 bags of cocoa and stored them in the respondents’ shed at Winneba, in my view the ownership became vested in the respondents. It is not the case (as the Judge found) that the general as well as the special property was in the appellant prior to delivery on board for shipment. Nor is it the case that loss, such as would arise from a burglary, would fall on the appellant.
KORSAH-BROWN v. JOHN HOLT & CO. (L’POOL) LTD. [1959] GLR 75 [1959] SLR (CA) 9 · Court of Appeal · 1959 · VAN LARE JA
Read it in the judgment