The Commercial Division of the High Court presided by His Lordship Justice Francis Obiri JA has awarded GH¢250k damages to a customer of Zonda Tec Ghana Limited for breach of warranty to the customer in the sale and purchase of a brand new Forland 12T Light Truck (6.7).

The Court made the said orders in the case of TONY AFOAKWA v. ZONDA TEC GHANA LTD [TLP-HC-2025-09] dated the 10th day of April, 2025. The Court in its wisdom upon the evaluation of evidence held that Zonda Tec Ghana Limited had breached its 6months warranty to the Plaintiff over the vehicle acquired by the Plaintiff.

STAR OF THE MONTH - Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa Esq.

Celebrating 150 years of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ghana

In an admirable application of the law on sale of goods, law of evidence principles of admission and the award of damages, the learned Obiri J.A performing additional dutiesof a High Court Judge in the matter extended the warranty for the damaged engine of the brand new truck to three years after the repair of the engine by the Defendant. The Court held that, "As a consequential order on reliefs A and B, I hereby order the Defendant to replace and repair the faulty parts of the engine for the Plaintiff within three months. The Plaintiff is granted three years warranty to cover the truck in issue"

The Court thus dismissed the claims of the Defendant that the modification of the bucket of the truck resulted in the vehicle's engine problems which occurred within 3 months of purchase. According to the learned judge, "The issue of the Plaintiff having constructed a bucket at the back of the truck and or parking the truck at the mechanic shop are in my view inconsequential. I do not think constructing a bucket at the back of a truck should affect the engine of the truck. The Defendant claim, that the truck was overloaded, which was denied by the Plaintiff, is not supported by any corroborative evidence. However, even if it is true, it cannot affect the engine of a brand-new truck within three months. A court should therefore view such defence so romancing, that it should refuse to be baited by its seductive appeal."

The court in its firm view of the substandard condition of the product sold to the Plaintiff held the view at page 17 of the judgment of the Court as can be read/downloaded below that, "In my opinion, the truck did not live up to the purpose and standard for which it was purchased by the Plaintiff. It is my view, that the defects in the engine were latent defects that could not be seen even upon careful examination."

READ/DOWNLOAD JUDGMENT BELOW: