AKYEAMAH vs. POKU AND OTHERS [1960]DLHC33

Date	1960-04-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC33

OLLENNU J.

TWUM BARIMA FOR PLAINTIFF.

MOORE FOR SECOND FOURTH AND FIFTH DEFENDANTS.

NO APPEARANCE BY FIRST AND THIRD DEFENDANTS.

[1960]DLHC33
																																						<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" >AKYEAMAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>POKU AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 110<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
25TH APRIL, 1960.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

TWUM BARIMA FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case the plaintiff claims three reliefs:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1) An
order declaring null and void the sale of the plaintiff’s two farms, on grounds
of fraud and material irregularity in the said sale;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) Declaration
of title to and recovery of possession of the said two farms, and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) £G100
damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
prayer, it was submitted, was made in exercise of a right under Order 51, rule
18, of the Rules of the Supreme Court; and the sale required to be annulled is
a sale made at a public auction upon an order of court made in execution of a
decree which the second defendant had obtained against the first defendant. The
said rule 18 of Order 51 is as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“At any
time within twenty-one days from the date of the sale of any immovable
property, application may be made to the Court to set aside the sale on the
ground of any material irregularity in the conduct of the sale, but no sale
shall be set aside on the ground of such irregularity unless the applicant
shall prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has sustained substantial
injury by reason of such irregularity.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
irregularity relied upon for the exercise of this alleged right is “breach of
undertaking by the sheriff at Koforidua with whom papers for interpleader
proceedings to oppose the sale had been filed, to notify the deputy sheriff at
Kibi to suspend the sale pending the determination of the interpleader
proceedings.”<o:p></o:p>It is
necessary to determine firstly whether the plaintiff is entitled under the said
Order 51, rule 18 to apply to have the sale in question set aside; secondly if
she is, whether this is the court to which she should make such an application;
and thirdly whether there has been material irregularity in the conduct of the sale,
and if there has been, whether the plaintiff has sustained substantial injury.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
case of Government of Ashanti v Adjuah Korkor and Others, (4 W.A.C.A. 83) the
West African Court of Appeal, stated that they agreed with Bannerman, J., upon
all the points of his judgment in the Divisional Court. Among other points,
Bannerman, J. had decided that the wording of the rule (it was then Order 44,
rule 31) is so wide in its scope as to permit any one not a party to the suit
in which the execution issued, who is affected by the sale, to invoke the aid
of the rule. But a careful study of Bannerman, J.’s judgment and the language
itself, reveal that the term “any one not a party” employed in the judgment is
qualified by, and should be read together with the words “has sustained
substantial injury by reason of such irregularity “ which govern them. When so
read, it appears that the person who may apply to have a sale by order of the
court set aside upon fraud or material irregularity in the conduct of the sale,
is the person whose interest in th</main>