TRUE LIFE MICROFINANCE vs. STELLA AKPA [2017]DLHC3327

Date	2017-05-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC/ 0030/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3327

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY OSEI TUTU NKWANTABISA PRESENT

W. K. OWUSU ESQ. FOR APPLICANT PRESENT

I. B. AKWANTEY ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT ABSENT

[2017]DLHC3327
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >TRUE LIFE MICROFINANCE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STELLA AKPA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO.
MISC/ 0030/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8TH
MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY OSEI TUTU NKWANTABISA PRESENT<o:p></o:p>W. K. OWUSU, ESQ., FOR APPLICANT PRESENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

I. B.
AKWANTEY, ESQ., FOR RESPONDENT ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In an application under section 33 of the Borrowers
and Lenders Act, Act 773 by the &nbsp;Application for warrant to possess the
security used as collateral for a loan of Gh¢20.000.00 advanced to the
Respondent, the latter has raised per paragraph 5 of its affidavit in
opposition that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>“the application does not comply with the Rules of Court&nbsp; and it is not clear whether it is originating
motion or otherwise”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As I understood this deposition in paragraph 5 to be
in the nature of a preliminary objection, the court invited the Respondent to
argue this claim.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I.B. Akwantey, Esq in providing substance to the
objection claim that the application founded under section 33 of Act 773 seeks
to oust the jurisdiction of the court and that a jurisdiction of a court cannot
be ousted unless it is done in express and clear terms by the legislature as
there is a presumption against ousting the jurisdiction of the court. Again
counsel contends that the Applicant cannot proceed to court in the manner which
he has approached the court without first establishing the liability of
Respondent in a writ issued by Applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before dealing with the double edged objection, there
was an earlier viva voce one raised by the counsel for Respondent that I orally
overruled. However, out of abundance of caution, I find it necessary to restate
the objection and my ruling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court had earlier granted the application for
warrant to possess the collateral used as security for the loan on 27th
March, 2017. Nonetheless, based on an application filed by counsel for
Respondent herein that the grant of the application of the warrant by the court
was made without due consideration of an affidavit in opposition, the court ex debito justiciae set aside the grant
and restored the application to be reheard with the benefit of the affidavit in
opposition (see my Ruling on 11/4/17). Counsel for Respondent on the 26th
of April, 2017 resisted this application on the grounds that there was no
application before the court as his application to the court which necessitated
the vacation of the grant of the warrant ipso facto has determined the
application for warrant to possess the security filed by the Applicant. The
court dismissed this objection in limine and the reason is simple. Respondent
cannot through the Trojan horse of his affidavit not having been on record for
consideration and on which bases the court vacated the grant use that as a
foundation to claim that there is no application before the court. It was for
the sake of natural justice that Respondent must be heard and Respondent’s
application did not determine the present application before me. This put the
epitaph on that claim by counsel for Respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And now to the substance of the objection founded
under paragraph 5 of the affidavit in opposition to the application for warrant
to possess the secured property. It is stated under sections 32 and 33 of the
Borrowers and Lenders Act, Act 773 as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.9pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:
widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:
ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-right:1.2pt;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.45pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:
12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:auto;
punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-nu</main>