EDWARD WIREDU J.A.
The facts of this case which have provoked the present appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The defendant-appellant, hereafter referred to as the appellant, was prior to the events giving rise to this action the owner of vehicle No. WE 6604. The evidence shows that he originally employed the plaintiff-respondent, also hereafter referred to simply as the respondent, as the driver of the said vehicle. In the course of his relationship, the appellant agreed with the respondent for the sale of the vehicle to him (the respondent) under what has come to be called “work and pay” basis in local parlance. A written agreement to this effect was executed between them. This agreement was tendered in evidence as exhibit 1.
Under exhibit 1 two conditions were set down which entitled the seizure of the vehicle. These were contained in clauses 5 and 6 which respectively read:
“5. The vendee has agreed that if he fails to pay the said monthly instalment of ¢83.69 (Eighty-three cedi…