Cookie Policy
LUTTERODT J.
The facts which gave rise to this action are that on or about 14 October 1970, the defendants took possession of the plaintiff’s boat numbered T.M. 70 into their workshop for repairs. It was said to be subject to the usual terms and conditions. The defendants kept the propeller blade in their store while they awaited the return of the propeller shaft which had been removed and given to the plaintiff to be taken elsewhere for repairs. These two parts work together and one cannot be fitted without the other. When the plaintiff returned the shaft to the defendants, however, this complementary part, the blade, was nowhere to be found. It was not until some five weeks later that the defendants got another blade to replace the stolen part. Thereafter the plaintiff caused his solicitors to issue this writ claiming the following reliefs: the sum of ¢26,400 being loss of use of the plaintiff’s fishing vessel by name Ashie Odame which was occasioned by the negligence of the defenda…