J U D G M E N T 
The plaintiff claims against the defendants the following reliefs: 
“a) An Order directed at the defendants to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle with a similar Chevy Prism Saloon Vehicle or in the alternative pay for the prevailing market value of the vehicle at the time of the accident.  
b) Loss of income at GH¢30.00 per day from 13th July, 2013, up to date of judgment.  
c) General damages for loss of use of the vehicle.  
d) Costs.” 
The defendants counter-claimed as follows: 
“i. Damages for mental stress, hardship and harassment. 
 ii. By reason of the matters narrated in the Statement of Defence, the  defendants have suffered loss and damage, both special and general.” The facts of this case are that the plaintiff is a taxi driver resident in Accra. The 1st defendant is a mechanic and the owner of a garage vehicle fixing workshop situated at Ofankor Barrier along the Asofa road, Accra. The 2nd defendant is an apprentice mechanic and works under the direct supervision of the1st defendant and was in the course of employment of the 1st defendant at all material times to this suit. Sometime in July 2013, the plaintiff sent his vehicle a Chevy Prism Saloon Vehicle with 
2  
registration number GT 6493 -09 to the 1st defendant’s workshop for repairs after the vehicle developed a fault. The 2nd defendant drove the plaintiff’s vehicle, had an accident with it and it has still not been repaired. 
The issues for trial are as follows: 
“(a) Whether or not the defendants agreed to repair the plaintiff’s vehicle?  (b) Whether or not the GH¢100.00 was paid to the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant? (c) Whether or not the 2nd defendant repaired the plaintiff’s vehicle on the instructions of the 1st defendant in the course of his employment? (d) Whether or not the 1st defendant agreed to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle after the accident.  (e) Whether or not the plaintiff instructed 2nd defendant to drive the vehicle with his consent?  (f) Whether or not the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant went to Abossey Okai and bought the necessary parts of the vehicle?  (g) Whether or not the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff to look for a similar vehicle so that the 1st defendant would buy same for the plaintiff as replacement for the plaintiff’s damaged vehicle?” 
Both learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants were to file addresses but only counsel for the plaintiff did as at the time of reading this judgment.  
With respect to the issue of whether or not the defendants agreed to repair the plaintiff’s vehicle, the plaintiff, PW1 Richard Osafo, the plaintiff’s elder brother and the defendants all testified that the defendant’s agreed to repair the plaintiff’s vehicle after the 2nd defendant had an accident with it. The plaintiff said at the meeting the 1st defendant did not admit that he had taken delivery of the vehicle in order to repair it so they went away. He added that the next day the 1st defendant called him and admitted that the incident occurred in his shop so they should have a second meeting. Plaintiff said at the second meeting the 1st defendant admitted liability and said he will repair the vehicle and he agreed. The 1st defendant stated that he agreed to the advice of the police inspector because the 2nd defendant is his apprentice and he wanted to help him. This issue is therefore not in dispute. 
3  
On the issue of whether or not the GH¢100.00 was paid to the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant asked him to deposit GH¢40.00 towards the repairs with the 2nd defendant and he did. He said later the 1st defendant requested an additional GH¢60.00 and on 10th July 2013, plaintiff gave it to the 2nd defendant who gave it to the 1st defendant. According to 2nd defendant the plaintiff gave him GH¢100.00 to facilitate the repairs of his vehicle but the 1st defendant was not aware of it. From the evidence adduced the GH¢100.00 was given to the 2nd defendant. He stated that the 1st defendant was not aware of the said amount. The plaintiff did not admit receiving the said amount. It is therefore difficult to say that the said amount was ultimately given to the 1st defendant. I am persuaded to accept the 1st defendant’s evidence that he did not give the money to the 2nd defendant because he was given the money and he has nothing to gain by saying that he did not hand over the said money to the 1st defendant. Concerning the issue of whether or not the 2nd defendant repaired the plaintiff’s vehicle on the instructions of the 1st defendant in the course of his employment, according to the plaintiff, on 8th July 2013, he took his taxi Chery Prism with registration no. GT 6493-09 for repairs at the 1st defendant’s workshop. He said the 1st defendant said he could not work on it then so he should bring it the next day and leave it with the 2nd defendant which he did on the 9th July 2013. PW1 said the 1st defendant contended that the plaintiff did not give the vehicle to him but rather negotiated with the 2nd defendant and stressed that he was not responsible for the damage. PW1 claimed that the plaintiff stated that that was the third time he had gone to the shop and the 1st defendant made him deal with the 2nd defendant after which the plaintiff paid the money to the 1st defendant. Under cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that he had direct transaction with the 2nd defendant without the knowledge of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff disputed counsel for the defendants assertion that in an attempt to resolve the matter between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, the 1st defendant said because the 2nd defendant is his apprentice he will help to repair the vehicle. The 1st defendant gave evidence that on the 13th July 2013, the plaintiff brought his car for him to repair and he told him he was busy so he cannot work on it so he left with his car. According to the 1st defendant, the next day his apprentice the 2nd defendant, told him he had been involved in an accident with the plaintiff’s car. The 1st defendant said before the accident he was not aware that the plaintiff had given his car to the 2nd defendant. He said after the accident the 2nd 
4  
defendant told him, he worked on the plaintiff’s car in a house behind the plaintiff’s shop.  The 1st defendant stated that he told both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant that he, the 1st defendant was not responsible for the car. The 1st defendant said he got a telephone call from the Mile 7 police station that a case had been made against him so he reported there. According to the 1st defendant, the inspector at the police station advised him that as he was in a situation to repair the car on behalf of the 2nd defendant he should do so and report back to the inspector so he commenced with the repairs on the car. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant said the 2nd defendant is the most senior apprentice in his shop. He stated that the 2nd defendant has ever worked on the plaintiff’s vehicle. He said he is the owner of the shop and supervises the 2nd defendant. He stated that after the accident the 2nd defendant towed the plaintiff’s vehicle to the shop. He admitted that the 2nd defendant cannot work on any vehicle that is brought to the 1st defendant’s shop without the 1st defendant’s consent. The 2nd defendant gave evidence that on the day the plaintiff brought his vehicle to the shop for repairs, they were very busy working and because his master the 1st defendant was not present, the plaintiff left his vehicle under the 2nd defendant’s care. He said the plaintiff gave the vehicle to him to repair but he did not repair it in the 1st defendant’s shop. He stated that he repaired the said vehicle behind the plaintiff’s workshop but the 1st defendant was not aware of it. Under cross-examination the 2nd defendant admitted he works under the supervision of the 1st defendant and takes instructions from him. He admitted that he has no authority to work on any vehicle that comes to the workshop without the 1st defendant’s consent. He stated that the 1st defendant does not know that he, the 2nd defendant has been working on the plaintiff’s vehicle for a long time. From the evidence led it is clear that the 2nd defendant did not repair the plaintiff’s vehicle on the instructions of the 1st defendant in the course of his employment before he had the accident with it.  
With regards to the issue of whether or not the 1st defendant agreed to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle after the accident, the evidence adduced indicates that is the case. Exhibit B is the demand for replacement of the plaintiff’s vehicle by his lawyers dated 20th December 2013 and addressed to the 1st defendant. I find as a fact that the 1st defendant agreed to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle after the accident and the engine in the plaintiff’s vehicle was stolen.   
5  
On the issue of whether or not the plaintiff instructed 2nd defendant to drive the vehicle with his consent, the 2nd defendant contended that after he had finished repairing the vehicle the plaintiff told him to meet him somewhere with it and on the way he was involved in an accident. Under cross-examination the 2nd defendant said he does not have a driving license. He stated that at the time he drove the plaintiff’s vehicle he had no authority from the 1st defendant to do so. Under cross-examination the 2nd defendant also said he did not report the accident to the police. He stated that because he does not have a driving license he did not drive the vehicle on his own authority but it was the plaintiff who instructed him to meet him with the vehicle. The 1st defendant said the 2nd defendant told him it was the plaintiff who gave him the car and asked him to drive it. The evidence led indicates that the 2nd defendant drove the plaintiff’s car with the knowledge of the plaintiff but without the knowledge or consent of the 1st defendant.  
Regarding the issue of whether or not the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant went to Abossey Okai and bought the necessary parts of the vehicle, no evidence was led on this so it is presumed that they did not go. This is more so, as from the evidence led, the plaintiff is not aware of the parts of the vehicle that were allegedly bought by the defendants.   
With respect to the issue of whether or not the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff to look for a similar vehicle so that the 1st defendant would buy same for the plaintiff as replacement for the plaintiff’s damaged vehicle, the plaintiff said that at that meeting the 1st defendant told them the engine he had removed from the vehicle had been stolen, so, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant should look for a new vehicle to buy to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff stated that he found a similar vehicle and told the 1st defendant of the price but the 1st defendant said he would no longer buy the plaintiff a vehicle because he was going to clear his vehicle from the harbour. This evidence was corroborated by PW1. The plaintiff disputed counsel for the defendants suggestions that he brought this action to force the hand of the defendants to buy him another vehicle and he wants to reap where he has not sown. PW1 stated that the 1st defendant decided that they should look for a similar vehicle to that of the plaintiff so that he the 1st defendant will pay for it. According to PW1 they found a car at Kata Hotel for GH¢7,000.00 and told the 1st defendant. He added that at their third meeting with the 1st defendant, he showed the plaintiff and PW1 
6  
an Opel Vectra parked in front of his workshop and said if the plaintiff was interested he would replace the damaged vehicle with it but the plaintiff told him that vehicle was not in good condition so he would not accept it. Under cross-examination, PW1 said that when the 1st defendant showed the plaintiff the Opel Vectra and he refused it, the 1st defendant suggested that they go to the market to look for a similar car to replace the damaged vehicle and they did as he suggested. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant denied that he said he will replace the plaintiff’s vehicle with a new one. An evaluation of the evidence led makes it beyond dispute that the 1st defendant informed the plaintiff to look for a similar vehicle so that he, the 1st defendant would buy same for the plaintiff as replacement for the plaintiff’s damaged vehicle.  
In his written address learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has sufficiently established his case to entitle him to judgment and relied on the cases of Ackah vrs. Pergah Transport Ltd &Ors. [2010] SCGLR 728, Manu vrs. Nsiah [2005-2006] SCGLR 25, Takoradi Flour Mills vrs. Samir Faris [2005-2006] SCGLR 882, Majogbe vrs. Larbi [1959] 192, In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey & Ors vrs. Kotey & Ors. [2003-2004] SCGLR 420 and Section 11(4) of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323.  He stated that the plaintiff tendered exhibits A, A1 and A2 to support his claim that the vehicle is damaged beyond repairs. He said this evidence is corroborated by the evidence of the court expert. He added that as at the date the plaintiff issued the Writ, the vehicle has still not been repaired. Learned counsel submitted that the engine on the vehicle was stolen whilst in the custody of the defendants and admitted by them. He said the 2nd defendant admitted that the accident was his fault. He asserted that even though counsel for the defendants sought to suggest that no agreement to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle was reached, no evidence was tendered by the defendants to dispute that allegation  by the plaintiff which was admitted in the pleadings of the defendants.  
Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the evidence also demonstrates that the conduct of the defendants with respect to the plaintiff’s vehicle amounts to conversion. He stated that the Supreme Court case of Nelson vrs. Standard Bank [1999-2000] 366 at 368 has facts which are similar to the present case. According to him it was held in that case that conversion was the wrongful possession of goods or chattel belonging to another and use thereof by the other. 
7  
Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant averred that he was repairing the vehicle but led no evidence in support of the assertion. He said proof in law is the establishment of an averment by admissible evidence which the defendant failed to discharge.    
The plaintiff gave evidence that he is a taxi driver. He said the 1st defendant is a mechanic who repairs his vehicle and the 2nd defendant is a senior apprentice of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff said the 2nd defendant’s telephone was used to call him and a different person told him the vehicle had been involved in an accident and he tendered exhibits A, A1 and A2 in support of his claims. Exhibits A, A1 and A2 are pictures of the plaintiff’s car. Under cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that the defendants’ workshop is where he regularly repairs his vehicle. The 1st defendant said he started repairing the plaintiff’s car when the engine was stolen. He stated that he had completed with the body works on the car. He added that all the car parts (apart from the engine) are there but are not fitted to the car. He explained that he removed them so that they do not get missing. He tendered pictures of the plaintiff’s car parts as exhibit 1. The 1st defendant said he intends to buy the lost engine for the plaintiff. He said the car is not damaged beyond repairs. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant denied that the plaintiff’s vehicle is damaged beyond repairs. He insisted that they are in the process of repairing the plaintiff’s vehicle and that exhibit 1, is his proof.  It must be stated that exhibit 1 is a picture of parts of the car only and does not have a picture of the car itself. During cross-examination the 1st defendant said he has not found the missing engine. He alleged that he has bought a new engine and paid a deposit for it but has not yet made final payment for it so he has not gone for it. He admitted that at the time the engine was stolen the car was in his custody and that the defendants are responsible for it. He maintained that after three years, they are still repairing the plaintiff’s vehicle. He stressed that he has all the parts of the said vehicle but because of this matter in court he suspended the repairs on the vehicle. Under cross-examination the 2nd defendant said they are almost done with the repairs of the plaintiff’s vehicle. He said it is his fault that the plaintiff’s car engine is missing. He added that the 1st defendant promised to buy the missing engine and has done so. He stated that the court has to believe their evidence that they are still repairing the plaintiff’s vehicle.   
8  
The plaintiff said the defendants called and told him they will finish working on the car on the 13th July 2013 so he went there on that date but found out that the vehicle had been involved in an accident and was a wreck. PW1 said at the second meeting the 1st defendant admitted liability because the 2nd defendant was his apprentice and said he will repair the vehicle in a short period because it was the plaintiff’s sole means of survival. The 1st defendant gave evidence that the plaintiff brings his vehicle to him to repair. Plaintiff said on 15th July 2013, he went with his brother Richard Osafo to the workshop and they had a meeting with the defendants. Plaintiff said he told him if it was repaired well that would be the end of the matter but if it was not repaired satisfactorily, the vehicle would be sold and the top up made by the 1st defendant.  
CW1 Augustine Yaw Kyeremeh, an engineer and a valuation officer with State Transport Corporation (STC) testified that the plaintiff’s vehicle is damaged beyond economic repair and tendered exhibits CE1 and CE2. Under cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel CW1 said the vehicle was inspected on the 8th October 2015 in the presence of the plaintiff and a gentleman form the workshop. He said he does not know the defendants. Under cross-examination by the plaintiff’s counsel CW1 said the meaning of the vehicle being damaged beyond repairs is that the cost of the damage is higher than the pre-accident value of the vehicle. He admitted that it means the vehicle cannot be repaired. Under cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel CW1 stated that he has been an engineer with the STC for 15 years. He stated that it is not necessary to have all the parties present before inspection of a vehicle. He denied that he deliberately left out the defendants and went with only the plaintiff to inspect the vehicle. He also denied that his report was influenced by the plaintiff. He stressed that the court requested them to have the vehicle inspected and bring a report and that is their only business in the case. He added that they are a professional body and present reports as the object is and do not do anybody a favour. He explained that the vehicle is damaged beyond economic repairs because due the impact that the accident caused the vehicle, there is no repair that one can do that can make the vehicle motorable.  
Exhibit CE1 dated 13th October 2015 by Intercity STC coaches Ltd. states that the pre-accident value of the plaintiff’s vehicle is GH¢5, 100.00, the cost of repairs of the vehicle is GH¢8, 420.00, and attached the motor engineers report for the residue 
9  
value. The motor engineers report states that the present condition of the plaintiff’s vehicle is as follows: “No engine and gear box. No both front tyres and nubs. No front shafts. No steering tyre rods and links. No front suspension system. Bend rear off side dead axle and trailing arm. Electrical system requires overhauling Burst air bags. Shattered front windscreen. Broken and bend famrnes. Torn frame panel. No front finders and bumper. Vehicle damaged beyond economic repairs. (Scrap).  Value not less than GH¢150.00.” Exhibit CE2 is the list of the items vehicle parts and their cost the estimated total cost of repairs on plaintiff’s vehicle is stated as GH¢8, 740.00.  
I have deliberately given the details of the evidence of the parties and CW1 so that the totality of the evidence can be easily adduced and explain the reasons for the judgment.  
The plaintiff requested an Order directed at the defendants to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle with a similar Chevy Prism Saloon Vehicle or in the alternative pay for the prevailing market value of the vehicle at the time of the accident. From the evidence led it has been impossible for the defendants to replace the plaintiff’s vehicle with a similar one. The principle in law is that the court does not give orders it has to supervise to ensure enforcement. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it will be more practical and easy to enforce the alternative relief sought, that is, for the defendants to pay for the prevailing market value of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Exhibit CE1 states that the pre-accident value of the plaintiff’s vehicle is GH¢5,100.00. Since this is what the plaintiff requested, it is granted and judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the defendant’s for this amount. 
The plaintiff claimed loss of income at GH¢30.00 per day from 13th July, 2013, up to date of judgment. From the evidence adduced the plaintiff’s vehicle herein is his source of income and the defendants are aware of this. He has been deprived of its use and the income accruing from it since July 2013. It is therefore fair or just that the plaintiff is granted this relief. I have taken note of the amount claimed and it is very reasonable considering the economic realities in the country. Judgment is therefore entered for the plaintiff against the defendants for this relief sought.  
The plaintiff also claimed for General damages for loss of use of the vehicle. From the evidence adduced I find as a fact that the defendants breached the contract with 
10  
the plaintiff to repair his vehicle. Having so found the plaintiff is entitled to damages. It is trite knowledge that general damages flow from the breach of contract or tort.  
In Attorney-General v. Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd [2005-2006] SCGLR 271 at 290, the Supreme Court, per Dr. Seth Twum JSC stated:   “….a claim for damages for breach of contract will entitle the plaintiff to nominal damages only unless the plaintiff gives particulars of special damage. No particulars of general damages are ever ordered…General damages are such as the law will presume to be natural or probable consequence of the defendant’s act. They arise by inference of the law and need not therefore be proved by evidence.  As the Supreme Court per Twum JSC held in Delmas Agency Ghana Ltd. Vrs. Food Distributors International Ltd. [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 748, holding (3):  “General damages is such as the law will presume to be the natural or     probable consequences of the defendant’s act. It arises by inference of law and therefore need not to proved by evidence. The law implies general damage in every infringement of an absolute right. The catch is that only nominal damages are awarded. Where the plaintiff has suffered a properly quantifiable loss, he must plead specifically his loss and prove it strictly. If he does not, he is not entitled to anything unless general damages as are also appropriate.”     I have evaluated the totality of the evidence led, the facts and circumstances of this case and consider GH¢6,000.00 as adequate as general damages. I therefore award GH¢6,000.00 as general damages to the plaintiff against the defendants herein. An evaluation of the evidence adduced indicates that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof on him as required by Section 11(1) and (4) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323). Judgment is therefore entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants herein for all the reliefs sought as stated above.   The defendants counterclaimed against the plaintiff herein. A counterclaim is a separate claim in which the defendant becomes the plaintiff or the party with the burden of proof with respect to the reliefs sought. The defendants counterclaimed for: 
i. Damages for mental stress, hardship and harassment. ii. By reason of the matters narrated in the Statement of Defence, the defendants have suffered loss and damage, both special and general. 
11  
The 1st defendant said they counterclaimed because the plaintiff has wasted his time and money so he should be compensated. Under cross-examination the 1st defendant stated that they counterclaimed because when he was repairing the plaintiff’s vehicle he received the Writ of Summons. He added that he has suffered stress. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his written address that the defendants counterclaim has no basis in law and same should be dismissed.  
No other evidence was adduced by the defendants to establish the basis of their counter-claim. From the totality of the evidence adduced I have no option than to find that the defendants have not established their counterclaim and therefore same is dismissed.    
I have considered the factors stated in Order 74 rule 2(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) as amended by C.I.87 and the facts and circumstances of this case. I have considered the efforts it took the plaintiff to have his vehicle repaired and the litigation and its related expenses. I have also taken into account that the pre-accident value of the vehicle at the time of the accident as claimed by the plaintiff cannot purchase the same vehicle today due to inflation. I have considered all the above and think it is in the interest of justice to award costs of GH¢10,000.00 to the plaintiff against the defendants herein and I so order.     
      (SGD.) GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)   
COUNSEL: 
1. George Agbeko for the Plaintiff. 
2. Abraham Amaliba for the defendants.  