GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK vs. CAMB MOTORS LIMITED AND OTHERS [1980]DLHC2131

Date	1980-05-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC2131

AMUA-SEKYI J.

M. ATADIKA FOR THE APPLICANTS.

T. A. TAGOE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLHC2131
																																						<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" >GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>CAMB MOTORS LIMITED AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 489<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:
28 MAY 1980<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">

M. ATADIKA FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

T. A. TAGOE 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 1.0pt 0in">

AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>On 19
November 1979, four applications for judgment under Order 14 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), came before me in the following
suits: No. 847/79, Ghana Commercial Bank v. Camb Trading Co. Ltd.; No. 848/79;
Ghana Commercial Bank v. Camb Knitting and Garment Factory Ltd.; No. 849/79;
Ghana Commercial Bank v. Camb Knitting and Garment Factory Ltd. No. 732/79 and
Ghana Commercial Bank v. Camb Motors Ltd. The applications not being opposed by
the defendant-respondents (hereafter to be referred to as the respondents), who
were all represented by the same counsel, I entered judgment in favour of the
plaintiff-applicants (hereafter to be referred to as the applicants) 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">“in No.
847/79 for ¢541,689.66 with ¢6,000 costs, in No. 848/79 for ¢81,898.62 with
¢3,000 costs, in No. 849/79 for ¢686.200.18 with ¢7,000 costs, and in No.
732/79, for ¢188,089.51 with ¢4,000 costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Following
this, the respondents applied for a stay of execution and an order for the
payment of the judgment debt and costs by instalments. The applications were
strongly resisted by the applicants whose counsel went so far as to suggest
that the High Court had no power to order payment of a judgment debt by
instalments. He probably had in mind the decisions in Standard Bank of West
Africa Ltd. v. Boaitey [1971] 2 G.L.R. 308 and Amo-Mensah v. Owusu [1972] 1
G.L.R. 251 delivered by Taylor J. (as he then was), but did not press the
matter to the point of a ruling. If he had, I would, in view of the clear
provisions of Order 42, r. 16 (1) (b) of L.N. 140A, have felt obliged to
disagree with those decisions and overrule the objection. Order 42, r. 16 (1)
(b) states:<o:p></o:p>“(b) The
Court or a Judge may, at or after the time of giving judgment or making an
order, stay execution until such time as they or he shall think fit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>An order
that a judgment debt be paid by monthly instalments is an order staying
execution conditionally. The orders I made on 4 February 1980 on the
applications were that the respondents, being sister companies, should make an
immediate payment of ¢200,000 and then pay the balance by monthly instalments
of ¢50.000; and that if they made default in paying any of the sums ordered,
the applicants were to be at liberty to go into execution for the unpaid
balance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is conceded
by the applicants that the orders of the courts have been scrupulously observed
by the respondents. It appears, however, that the respondents themselves were
not wholly satisfied with those orders and sought to have them reviewed. Having
regard to the provisions of Order 39, r. 8 (3) of L.N. 140A, they thought it
proper as a first step, to apply, under Order 64, r. 6 of L.N. 140A, for an
extension of time in which to apply for a review of the orders made by the
court. Order 39, r. 8 (3) provides:<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.
Applications for review under this order shall be made within 14 days from the
date on which the judgment or order in respect of which review is sought was
entered or made: Provided that where the review sought is in respect of a final
judgment, the Court or Judge may on such terms as seem just, grant special
leave to apply for review at any time within three months from the entering of
such final judgment.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order 64,
r. 6 also provides:<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">