YEBOAH vs. KRAH AND OTHERS [1973]DLHC2340

Date	1973-11-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2340

OSEI-HWERE J.

AGYEPONG FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

OSEI KOFI FOR THE FIRST DEFENDANT.

TAKYI FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2340
																																						<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">YEBOAH<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">KRAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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 247<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:
12 NOVEMBER 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">

AGYEPONG
FOR THE 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">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>By the
order of the court the first issue set down for trial was taken as a
preliminary point of law for hearing. That issue 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">“Whether
or not the first defendant could lawfully sell the original plaintiff’s house
worth more than ¢900.00 in execution of a judgment debt of ¢60.00 and ¢5.20
costs without first taking out a summons to show cause, or first selling the
movables of the original plaintiff in satisfaction of the said judgment debt
and costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
no dispute that the first defendant had obtained a judgment in the sum of
¢60.00 and ¢5.20 costs against the deceased plaintiff, who stood as surety, and
the principal debtor. There is also no controversy, as disclosed by the
application for a writ of fi. fa. exhibited, that the first defendant (as the
plaintiff-judgment-creditor) applied to the registrar of the District Court
Grade II, Sunyani that the compound house No. Z. 116 situate at Sunyani Zongo,
and belonging to the deceased plaintiff, be attached for sale in satisfaction
of the said judgment debt of ¢65.20. There is no controversy that following the
said application for a writ of fi. fa. the said house was duly sold by the
second defendant to the third defendant for the sum of ¢900.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
contention of counsel for the plaintiff that the said sale of the house was
illegal since the first defendant ought to have first levied against the
personalty of the deceased plaintiff and it was only when that proved
insufficient that he could have attached the house. In support of his argument
counsel for the plaintiff referred the court to the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4
(1951 Rev.), Sched. II, Order 44, r. 14 and to the Supreme Court decision of Kwabena
v. Aninkora [1964] G.L.R. 299. In reply counsel for the second and third
defendants argued that the decision in Kwabena v. Aninkora could be
distinguished since in that case the judgment went by default whilst it was not
so in the judgment from which the fi. fa. proceeded. Counsel also argued that
it was the duty of the deceased plaintiff (the defendant-judgment-debtor in the
court below) to have disclosed that he had personality which could be attached.
Counsel relied on the decision of Badu v. Kwadjo [1971] 2 G.L.R. 346 where
Anterkyi J. held that Order 42, r. 46 of the Supreme [High] Court, (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) (which is similar to Cap. 4, Sched. II,
Order 44, r. 14), is applicable where it is proved that the judgment creditor knows
of the existence and whereabouts of the debtor’s movables.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I am
satisfied that the Supreme Court’s observations in Kwabena v. Aninkora (supra)
as to the circumstances when immovable property can be attached in satisfaction
of a judgment debt is on all fours with the preliminary point taken here as to
leave no room for any distinguishing. I do not also think that there is any
duty on the judgment debtor to, satisfy the judgment creditor that he has
sufficient movable property to satisfy the judgment debt otherwise the
protection given to the judgment debtor by the provisions Cap. 4, Sched. II,
Order 44, r. 14 will be meaningless. It is clear from the first defendant’s
application for the writ of fi. fa. that he left the registrar of the district
court no choice in the matter when he selected what property should be attached
by the fi. fa. The tort committed must, therefore, be borne by the first
defendant alone. It was the duty of the first defendant to have applied that</main>