KARAM vs. A. G. LEVENTIS & CO. LTD. [1965]DLSC1814

Date	1965-03-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLSC1814

MILLS-ODOI JSC

OLLENNU JSC

BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C.

OSEI-BONSU FOR THE APPELLANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[1965]DLSC1814
																																						<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" >KARAM <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>A. G. LEVENTIS &amp; CO. LTD. <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 96<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">

DATE:
1 March 1965.<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">

OSEI-BONSU FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS,<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">

MILLS-ODOI., OLLENNU AND BRUCE-LYLE
JS.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BRUCE-LYLE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the ruling of Apaloo J. (as he then was) sitting in the High
Court, Kumasi, and dated 3 October 1961.<o:p></o:p>The facts
are that a writ of fi. fa. was issued on 13 May 1961 in execution of a judgment
against the defendants judgment debtors (hereinafter referred to as the
judgment debtors) and in favour of the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter
referred to as the plaintiff); the judgment is dated 13 February 1961. On the
strength of the fi. fa., plot No. 576 situate in the old town section of Kumasi
was attached and advertised for sale by public auction on 20 June 1961. The
claimants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) interpleaded
on 24 May 1961, on the ground that they were entitled to the property by reason
of a mortgage deed dated 25 October 1960. On the matter coming before the High
Court on the sheriff’s summons, and after arguments by counsel for both the
plaintiff and the claimants, the trial judge ruled in favour of the claimants.
Against this ruling the plaintiff has appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff argued this appeal on the following grounds:<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)
Since no deed of mortgage was executed pursuant to the consent given by the
President of Ghana, there was no proper mortgage of the premises in question. <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) On
the record (in particular exhibit A), the claimants acted in fraud of the
creditor, and ought not to be allowed to take the benefit of the said fraud.<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">&nbsp;(3) The document dated 25 October 1960 as
exhibit B on which the claimants relied told a lie about itself and ought not
to be held valid—it recited at page 16 clause 4 that ‘The consent in writing of
both the lessor and the Asantehene (in this case the Administrator of Stool
Lands) to the mortgage hereby made has been duly obtained.’ This averment is
false to the knowledge of both mortgagor and mortgagee. <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">(4) Since
it was apparent that there were several disputed matters, some of them matters
of law, the learned judge ought properly to have ordered pleadings and allowed
the case to be tried substantively.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
support of grounds (1) and (3) learned counsel argued that the mortgage was
executed on 25 October 1960 and that the consent of the President, which was
essential for the mortgage of lands in Kumasi, having been obtained on 3 March
1961 and subsequent to the date of the mortgage, there was no valid mortgage of
the land in question.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
apparent on the face of the record of proceedings that this same ground was
canvassed before the trial judge who ruled on it 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">“It is
plain therefore that the claimants had a valid title to this property long
before the execution creditor applied for and sought to dispose of it by fi.
fa. Mr. Adade has however argued with some force that the mortgage is invalid
as the consent, as I understand him, post-dates the mortgage. He contended that
there can be no valid mortgage before 3 March and as no mortgage was executed
subsequent to that date, there was no valid charge on the property. The short
reply to this submission is that if the claimants did not take steps to perfect
their title before 29 March 1961, it was none of the execution creditor’s
business. The bald fact is that about two months before the execution creditor
sought to exercise any rights in the premises, the claimants had an unimpeachable
title.”<o:p></o:p></main>