Case No.:

AC-REV-23-1962

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1962

Principles

·  Personal Property—Liens—Particular lien for mechanic on c for unpaid costs of repairs

Plaintiff took his car to defendant for repairs. When defendant had completed the repairs he refused to deliver the car until his bill was paid. Plaintiff sued to recover the car, alleging the cost of repairs was paid.
Held: The defendant mechanic has a particular lien on the car for the cost of repairs; plaintiff may recover possession by depositing cost of repairs with court pending litigation.

Judgment

                                         (COURT OF APPEAL) *

           SHOEIB MOHAMED SAlTI v. HUSSEIN HASSAN SALIH

                                          AC-RE V- 23-1962

Advocates: Ibrahim Ahmed Ibrahim for defendant-applicant El Sayim Mohamed Ibrahim ... for plaintiff-respondent

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. December 3, 1962: —The plaintiff in this case is the owner of a motor-car and the defendant is the owner of a garage in Omdurman. The plaintiff delivered the car to the defendant for repairs, and the latter repaired it and sent to the plaintiff a bill for £S.177.930m/ms. being the cost of repairs, and refused to deliver it unless and until the bill is settled.

The plaintiff brought this action claiming the recovery of the car, and added that he was not liable to pay the amount claimed or any other amount. Before any issues were framed, advocate for plaintiff alleged that all the cost of repairs were settled and asked the court to order the delivery of the car to his client. The defendant denied that any amount was paid to him and objected to the delivery of the car. The District Judge ruled that the car could only be delivered to the plaintiff if he deposited in court the amount claimed. Plaintiff applied for revision of this ruling to the Province Judge. His Honour the Province Judge said in his judgment:

It is evident that the suit is disputed and the grant of such security is too harsh in the merits of the case. Institution of suit by applicant was from the start regarded as urgent because the seized car is used by applicant as a taxi and it is his sole means of living. Under these circumstances I am inclined to rule that the delivery of the said car is essential and it is equitable to deliver it subject to production by applicant of a surety or sureties who would be answerable to respondent if he succeeds in his counter-claim.” His Honour the Province Judge then set aside the ruling of the District Judge and ordered the delivery of the car to plaintiff on production of sureties for the amount claimed by defendant.

This application is against the above decision of the Province Judge.

In my view the defendant has a particular lien to retain the car until the cost of repairs are paid. A particular lien is a right to retain goods until all charges incurred in respect of those goods have been paid, and a person who, at the request of the owner, has done work or expended money on a chattel has a particular lien in respect of his claim. The leading authority on the subject is Green v. Al! Motors Ltd. [1917] 1 K.B. 625, which was decided by the Court of Appeal. In that case C owned a motor-car, which was let on hire-purchase to X, who agreed to “keep the car in good repair and working condition.” The car was damaged and X sent it to A for repairs. The instalments being in arrear, G determined the hire-purchase agreement and sued A for the car. A claimed a lien for the cost of repair. Held, A had a lien, as X had C’s authority to have the car repaired.

The question whether the plaintiff paid the cost of repairs or whether the cost was reasonable or not will he decided by the court.

This application is therefore allowed, as the defendant has a lien on the car for the proper cost of repairs. The decision of the Province Judge is set aside and the ruling of the District Judge is restored. Applicant is to pay costs which are assessed at £S.

Babiker Awadalla 1. December 3, 1962: —I concur.

Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. and B. Awadalla j.