GHANA RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION vs. ANSAH [1973]DLHC2280

Date	1973-08-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2280

EDUSEI J.

I. G. CARSON FOR THE APPLICANTS.

C. M. CANN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLHC2280
																																						<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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">GHANA RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION<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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ANSAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>&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;[1974] 1 GLR 47<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:
8 AUGUST 1973.<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">

I. G.
CARSON FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

C. M. CANN
FOR 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for a stay of execution by the defendants as judgment debtors.
The application is brought under Order 42, r. 16 (1) (b) of the Supreme [High]
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and it is supported by an
affidavit; and it does seem to me that the most important averments prayed in
aid of the motion are contained in paragraphs (9), (10) and (11) of the
supporting affidavit. Before I proceed to consider these averments I think it is
necessary to give a short history of this case. On 10 July 1972, judgment was
given against the defendants by this court for the sum of ¢27,740.00 with costs
of ¢600.00. The defendants appealed, and on 28 May 1973, the appeal was
dismissed for non-appearance of the defendants. The plaintiff, as judgment
creditor, by his solicitor applied on 21 June 1973, to the Attorney-General for
his fiat to enable him to go into execution as provided in section 6A (1) of
the Statutory Corporations Act, 1964 (Act 232), as inserted by the Statutory
Corporations Act, 1964 (Amendment) Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 120), s. 1.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Attorney-General’s fiat did not, after one month, come and the plaintiff,
through his solicitor, on 31 July 1973, informed the general manager, the chief
accountant and the chief administrative officer of the defendant corporation
regarding the satisfaction of the judgment debt and costs. This was after they
had been served with an entry of judgment. The plaintiff’s solicitor drew the
attention of those senior officers including the general manager to the
judgment of the Court of Appeal and to Act 232 as amended. The general manager,
according to the affidavit in opposition, promised to contact the solicitor of
the plaintiff by 2.00 p.m. on 31 July 1973, after the said general manager had
been in touch with Accra. No news came to the plaintiff or his solicitor when
execution proceeded on 1 August 1973.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants in their affidavit supporting the application for a stay of
execution stated in paragraphs (9), (10) and (11) 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">“(9) That
I am advised and verily believe the same that by virtue of the Statutory
Corporations Act, 1964 (Amendment) Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 120), the plaintiff
ought to have obtained the fiat of the Attorney-General before proceeding to
attach the defendants’ properties. <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">(10) That
in the absence of the said fiat I am verily advised that the plaintiff can only
proceed against the funds of the defendants and not their properties. <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">(11) That
the defendants have also applied for a relistment of the appeal which was
struck out on 28 May 1973 for want of prosecution.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I shall
dispose of paragraph (11) first. It is not true that any application for
relistment of the appeal in the Court of Appeal had been filed when this motion
was filed on 2 August 1973. Counsel for the defendants confessed in open court
that it had not been filed when counsel of the opposite side asked to see a
copy of such an application. It is clear that the averment in paragraph (11) is
absolutely false and it can be said that it was calculated to mislead or
deceive the court. However, in view of the apology made by Mr. Carson, counsel
for the defendants, I do not wish to comment on this matter again but will only
say that solicitors or counsel, as officers of the court, must give every
assistance to the court to arrive at just and fair decisions.<o:p></o:p>