Case of the Week: Nana Kwadwo v. Inspector-General of Police & Attorney General

High Court · Suit No.: BMISC 32/2016 · Ghana

Introduction

This case tested whether a purchaser of a vehicle imported into Ghana could validly claim ownership when the car had been reported stolen abroad. The court’s reasoning turned on the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet (“no one can give what they do not have”) and the limits of the bona fide (good faith) purchaser for value without notice defence.

Facts

In September 2015, Nana Kwadwo (Plaintiff), a businessman, purchased a Range Rover SUV from Patrick Afriyie of Pathers Enterprise for USD 75,000, paying additional customs duties and charges of about GHC 75,844.37. He was issued a bill of lading, purchase receipt, certificate of title, and two keys, and successfully cleared the car at Tema Port.

Soon after, Interpol Ghana seized the vehicle, claiming it had been reported stolen in Germany. According to Interpol Wiesbaden, the documents were forged, and ownership had already passed to a German insurance company, R and V Versicherung, which had indemnified the original owner and demanded the car’s repatriation.

Nana Kwadwo sued, seeking an order for the release of the car, damages for unlawful seizure, and costs. The police and Attorney-General (Defendants) opposed, maintaining that the car was stolen property and could not confer valid title.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for the following reasons:

1. The evidence showed the Range Rover had been stolen in Germany and traced to Ghana.

2. The certificate of title presented by the plaintiff was inconsistent and unreliable.
3. The plaintiff could not rely on the bona fide purchaser defence because he failed to properly investigate the vendor’s root of title
4. By the nemo dat principle, Patrick Afriyie could not pass ownership of stolen property.
5. The police seizure was lawful, and no damages were due.

Cost of GHC 1,500 was awarded against the plaintiff.

Significant Quote

“It is trite learning that any person desirous of acquiring property ought to properly  investigate the root of title of his vendor. In this case there is no evidence of such  prudent search conducted by the plaintiff even though he argues otherwise. 

If the plaintiff had done a thorough search of the vehicle how come they never  detected that the vehicle had not been manufactured in 2012 as stated on exhibit  ‘C’. 

The plaintiff could have detected this anomaly with customs if they had done the proper investigation. For if they did they would have found out the vehicle they  were buying was fraught with some challenges and would have been put on notice  about that fact.”

– Daniel Mensah J

Commentary/Insight

This case illustrates the risks in Ghana’s car import market. Possession of papers and keys is not conclusive proof of ownership. A purchaser must go beyond Customs clearance and shipping documents to verify the root of title.

For SMEs and car dealers, the decision reinforces a tough reality: if the seller’s title is defective, the buyer inherits that defect. The safest course is to conduct thorough checks with manufacturers and credible authorities. The court’s application of the nemo dat rule is a clear warning – you cannot get good title from a bad root.

That said, the plaintiff was not left without options. Since the court confirmed that Patrick Afriyie had no valid title and sold a stolen car, Nana Kwadwo’s remedy lay in pursuing civil action against the vendor for fraud, breach of contract, or misrepresentation, and possibly criminal proceedings through the police for dealing in stolen property. Taking such a course would not have restored ownership of the vehicle, but it would have enabled him to recover his financial loss from the seller who deceived him.

Finally, the decision also affirms Ghana’s compliance with international obligations under the framework of Interpol cooperation.