MAJDOUB & CO. LTD. vs. W. BARTHOLOMEW & CO. LTD. [1962]DLHC1559

Date	1962-02-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1559

DJABANOR J.

J. N. HEWARD-MILLS AND J. PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

H. W. KOFI-SACKEY FOR G. DAVEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1559
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">MAJDOUB &amp; CO. LTD. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">W. BARTHOLOMEW &amp; CO. LTD. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 122<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 21ST FEBRUARY, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

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

J.
N. HEWARD-MILLS AND J. PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

H.
W. KOFI-SACKEY FOR G. DAVEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 6.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
DJABANOR, J.<o:p></o:p>In fact, in April, 1960, action had been taken in this court by
the defendants against the firm Fattal &amp; Majdoub &amp; Company, claiming
the sum of £G1,350. Judgment was entered in November, 1960, after the
dissolution of Fattal &amp; Majdoub, for this amount with costs. If either the
defendants or the plaintiffs had accordingly substituted the plaintiffs for the
firm of Fattal &amp; Majdoub there would have been no trouble. But there was
trouble, and it arose in this way. When judgment was entered for the defendants
against the firm of Fattal &amp; Majdoub the defendants applied for a writ of
fi. fa. against that firm in execution of their judgment. According to the
deputy sheriff the writ was endorsed for the attachment of:<o:p></o:p>All and singular goods, counters and shelves in the store of the
execution debtors, Messrs. Fattal &amp; Majdoub in the premises situate and
known as Plot No. 604 O.T.B. district of Kumasi.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was dated the 3rd December, 1960 and signed by J. J. Peele
&amp; Company as solicitors for the judgment-creditors. By this time Fattal
&amp; Majdoub Company had dissolved their partnership and the plaintiffs were
doing business in the premises situate and known as Plot No. 604 O.T.B.,
Kumasi. The goods in this store were seized and the store closed for a number
of days from about the 28th December, 1960, till the 4th January, 1961. The
plaintiffs complaining that their store has been wrongly attached for the debts
of Fattal &amp; Majdoub Company, brought this action against the defendants,
the judgment-creditors of Fattal &amp; Majdoub, claiming according to their
writ:<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">“(a) A declaration that the attachment by fi. fa. on the
defendants’ instructions, of the property of the plaintiffs in their store in
the building situate on Plot No. O.T.B. 604, Kumasi is wrongful and unlawful.
(b) An order of this court upon the defendants stopping the sale of the
properties of the plaintiffs in<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">the said store and for the immediate release of the said store
from the said attachment. (c) £G10,000 general damages from the defendants for
the loss of reputation occasioned to plaintiffs by wrongfully and unlawfully
causing the attachment of the plaintiffs’ said property. (d) £G100 special
damages per day for loss of profit suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of
the said unlawful attachment to be computed from the 28th December, 1960, up to
date of judgment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The store was released from attachment on the 4th January, 1961,
and so there is no necessity for this court to make the order stopping the sale
as demanded. The plaintiffs are also now not claiming profits up to date of
judgment. They claim only up to the 4th January, 1961. Application for
injunction against the defendants was granted on the 6th January, 1961, when
because of the release on the 4th January, 1961 this became unnecessary.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In their statement of defence, the defendants denied that the
attachment of the plaintiffs’ store was unlawful and denied further that the
plaintiffs have suffered any damage to their reputation. The defendants,
however, admitted paragraph (5) of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim save that
they contended that the attachment was on the 28th December, 1958 and not the
29th December, and also paragraph (7) of the statement of claim. These are in
the following terms:<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">“5. On or about the 28th day of December, 1960, a bailiff of the
High Court, Kumasi went to the plaintiff-company’s store, with i</main>