IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT

DUAYAW NKWANTA, AHAFO REGION – A.D. 2023

21/02/2023

SUIT NO. A2/21/2023

KOFI TWENEBOAH KODUA

ABDUL MUMIN SAKA

JUDGMENT

The Claim of the Plaintiff is to recover against the Defendant for the following reliefs:

A. Recovery of an amount of Four Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC4,000.00) being

refund of the purchase price for the sale of a tricycle motor (pragia) sold to the

Plaintiff by the Defendant which has turned out to be faulty.

B. Interest on the amount stated supra at the prevailing bank rate from December

2022/January 2023 till date of final payment and cost.

The case of the Plaintiff

The case of the Plaintiff is essentially that he bought the pragia from the Defendant at

an agreed price of GHC4,000.00 and in a matter of days, the tricycle turned out to be

faulty. Plaintiff testified that he has since returned the motorcycle to the Defendant and

the Defendant has refused to refund his GHC4,000.00 to him.

The case of the Defendant

1|Page
The Defendant testified himself and called two other witnesses. The case of the

Defendant is that the motor tricycle (pragia) was not faulty at the time of the sale and

that the Plaintiff used the motor tricycle for more than one week before returning same.

Issue before the court

In the opinion of the court, the issue before the court is whether or not the court should

order for a refund of the sum Plaintiff paid for the motorcycle.

SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1962 (ACT 137)

In resolving the issue, the court resorts to the Sale of Goods Act, 1962, Act 137.

Section 13 (1) a of Act 137 states that there is an implied condition that the goods are

free from defects which are not declared or known to the buyer before or at the time

when the contract is made.

Section 49 of the Act 137 provides instances when buyer has right to reject and recover

the price.

Sub-section 1 of 49 provides as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this Act the buyer is entitled to reject the goods and to

refuse to pay, or as the case may be, to recover, the price where —

(a) the seller is guilty of a breach of a fundamental obligation; or

(b) the seller is guilty of a breach, not being of a trivial nature, of a condition of

the contract, whether the breach is in respect of all of the goods or, subject to

subsection (2), of part only; or

2|Page
 (c) the buyer has entered into the contract as a result of fraudulent or innocent

misrepresentation on the part of the seller.

Appling the above sections to the facts, the court is of the opinion that the implied

condition that the motor tricycle was free from defect can be imputed into the

transaction between the parties concerning the sale of the motor tricycle.

In applying section 49 subsection 1 of Act 137 to the instant case the court is of the firm

belief that subsection 1 (c) is applicable in that the Plaintiff bought the motor tricycle as

a result of fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation on part of the seller that the motor

tricycle was in good condition before selling it to the Plaintiff. The Pragia has turned out

not to be in good condition in just days after the purchase. In consequence, a case of

refund of the purchase price has been made by the Plaintiff.

The court is of the opinion that the implied condition that the tricycle was free from

defect can be inferred from the transactions between the parties.

From the forgoing, the court takes the view that the Plaintiff has proven his case and

enters judgment in his favour as follows:

1. Plaintiff recovers from the Defendant the sum of GHC4,000.00 being refund of

the price Plaintiff paid for motor tricycle.

2. Interest on the sum supra from January 2023 till date of final payment.

3. Cost of GHC500.00

Stanley Adjei

21/02/2023

3|Page