S. A. TURQUI & BROS. v. LAMPTEY [1961] GLR 190
7 April 1961 · OLLENNU J · ≈ 2 min read
[1961] SLR (HC) 16Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: IN THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA
DATE: 7TH APRIL, 1961
BEFORE: OLLENNU J.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
ACTION for damages for wrongful detention of a motor vehicle
COUNSEL
A.G. Heward Mills for plaintiffs.
Defendant in person.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU, J.
[His lordship referred to the facts as stated in the headnote supra and continued:] It is quite clear to me that the minds of the parties were not ad idem as to what the estimated cost of £45 included. There is therefore no binding contract between the parties. It is not surprising therefore that the plaintiffs’ claim is laid in detinue and not in breach of contract. To succeed on a claim in detinue the plaintiff must prove that the possession of the chattel by the defendant is wrongful, that a proper demand has been made for its return and the defendant has refused to return it.
In this case the defendant came into possession of the vehicle lawfully. If there had been a demand for its return the continued possession would, as from the date of refusal to return it, be unlawful. But there is no evidence of demand as required by law to determine the original lawful possession so as to make the defendant’s continued possession wrongful. The defendant’s possession never at any time material to the case became unlawful. The claim in detinue must therefore fail. But the matter does not rest there. The court being seized of all the facts is bound to do justice between the parties and make such order as the law would warrant in the circumstances. There being no enforceable contract between the parties, their minds not being ad idem, each must be restored to as nearly the same position as he was in immediately prior to the conclusion of their abortive agreement; that is to say, the plaintiffs must have back their vehicle in the same or nearly the same condition that it was, or in as reasonable condition as the intervening circumstances warrant, i.e. with the spare parts purchased with their money fitted to it, or delivered separately with it; and the defendant too must be paid remuneration on quantum meruit basis for the work he did on the vehicle.
In the circumstances the parties would have to agree upon the date of delivery of the vehicle and the amount to be paid to the defendant as his workmanship fees, to be made an order of the court.
DECISION
Case remitted for settlement along the lines indicated.
