Case of the week: David Amoo-Osae Jnr v. Rana Motors Ghana Ltd.

Court of Appeal · Civil Appeal No: H1/146/2019 · 6 May 2021 · Ghana

Introduction:

This case explores a customer’s rights under a vehicle warranty and the responsibilities of a supplier when unforeseen events damage a product in its custody. It intersects key principles of contract law under the Sale of Goods Act and tort law concerning an occupier’s duty of care.

Facts:

David Amoo-Osae Jnr bought a brand-new Kia Cerato Coupe from Rana Motors. The car came with a five-year or 100,000 km warranty. After a year and about 11,000 km of use, the car developed a gearbox fault. He returned it to Rana Motors for repairs.

While the car was at Rana Motors’ workshop, Accra experienced severe flooding. The workshop was submerged, and the car was completely flooded. Rana Motors initially told the buyer the car was beyond repair, but later claimed it had been fixed and certified roadworthy. The buyer rejected the vehicle and sued for a refund or a replacement. The High Court ruled in his favour. Rana Motors appealed.

Holding:

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that:

1. The Appellant, as an occupier, had a duty of care to ensure the safety of its premises, especially as it required customers to use its facilities under warranty agreements.
2. The Respondent’s credibility was undermined by the contradictory claims – first, that the car was beyond salvage, and later that it was roadworthy.
3. The Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s warranty had lapsed or that the damage was not covered.
4. Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), the Respondent was entitled to reject the vehicle and claim a refund.

Implications of the decision:

This case is important because it reinforces two core legal principles:

1. A business that invites customers onto its premises (such as a vehicle workshop) owes them a duty to take reasonable care to ensure safety.
2. By Sections 49 and 52 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137), a buyer can reject goods if the seller breaches a fundamental term of the contract.

Significant Quote:

“… an owner or occupier of a premises is deemed liable for all unusual dangers that may befall any lawful entrant on that premises. Such occupier’s duty is a warranty to persons he permits to enter his premises that the premises is safe, except for such undiscovered latent dangers that the exercise of reasonable care and diligence could not have discovered. It was however no defence to contend that the danger was obvious to all. The obligation is to make the premises safe for the purposes for which entry is permitted.” – Welbourne, J.A.

Commentary and Insights:

Welbourne, J.A.’s statement offers a clear and important explanation of the duty owed by an owner or occupier of premises to people who lawfully enter their property. At common law, such an occupier is responsible for ensuring that visitors are protected from unusual or unexpected dangers while on the premises. This duty is described as a warranty – meaning the occupier essentially guarantees that the premises are safe for the purpose for which the visitor was allowed to enter.

However, this duty is not absolute. The occupier is not liable for hidden dangers (latent risks) that could not have been discovered despite reasonable care and attention. This introduces a practical limit: the occupier must take reasonable steps to inspect and fix any dangers that a careful person would find, but cannot be held responsible for risks that are truly unknowable.

Significantly, Welbourne, J.A. rejects the idea that the occupier can avoid liability simply because the danger was obvious or plainly visible to everyone. This means the occupier cannot say, “The danger was so clear, visitors should have seen it and avoided it.” Instead, the occupier has an active role to play in making sure the premises are safe. This protects lawful visitors who may not be aware of risks or may reasonably rely on the occupier’s responsibility.

Ultimately, this case underscores how warranty obligations and premises safety are not merely commercial niceties. They are enforceable legal duties that protect consumers and demand accountability from businesses