Alliance Motors, 2 others facing $96,000 lawsuit over sale of defective vehicle

Alliance Motors Ghana Limited, AFCL Ghana and Jaguar Land Rover in South Africa are facing a lawsuit over the sale of a defective vehicle they sold to one Emmanuel Borkety Bortey.

The vehicle, a brand Land Rover, 2020 model which was purchased on July 29, 2020 was later discovered to have a defective engine.

The plaintiff is asking for a refund of the sum paid for the vehicle as “it is not fit for purpose”.

Plaintiff is demanding that the defendants refund the total amount of US$96,000 being paid in instalments from August 2020 until the final date, court documents sighted by this portal can confirm.

The plaintiff is also seeking for unspecified damages for breach of contract and costs including solicitor’s fees.

The plaintiff, one Mr Bortey, in his writ, revealed that he purchased the vehicle from Alliance Motors, the 1st defendant at a price of US$168,000.

Following the conclusion of the discussions on the sale, the 1st defendant introduced AFCL Ghana Limited, the 2nd defendant, as a company that could grant credit to the Plaintiff towards the purchase.

It added that to financing the purchase, an agreement approved for disbursement was US$151,200 and a credit facility was to be repaid over a period of thirty-six months at an interest rate of eleven percent per annum, thereby, bringing the total repayment to about US$184,144 and 32 cents.

According to him, after repayments of instalments, in October 2021, he sent the vehicle to workshop for routine checks and realized a ‘Check Engine’ as well as ‘Tyre Pressure’ indicator lights on the instrument cluster had lightened up and weren’t going off.

It was later discovered that the engine was defective and needed to be replaced.

According to the court documents, Mr Borketey was notified that the Jaguar Land Rover company, the 3rd defendant was notified of the development and that there has been an agreement to replace the engine.

He was then promised a courtesy car for his temporary use.

However, the defendant failed to deliver the courtesy car and this caused the Plaintiff to resort to other means to transport himself at great cost and expense, the court document explained. 

He indicated to the officers at Alliance Motors that he was no longer interested in the vehicle since it couldn’t live up to its billings as a robust and efficient vehicle.

It is therefore Mr Bortey’s contention that the 1st and 2nd defendant had evinced a clear intention to deprive him of the funds he paid towards the purchase of the vehicle.

Source: Adomonline

Leave a Reply