ANOKYI AND OTHERS vs. TUFFOUR [1984]DLCA837

Date	1984-05-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA837

ADADE J.S.C.

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON J.A.

K. EWUSIE-WILSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE RESPONDENT.

[1984]DLCA837
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ANOKYI AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 42<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
9 MAY 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

K. EWUSIE-WILSON FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE FOR OR BY THE RESPONDENT.<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">

ADADE J.S.C., EDUSEI AND MENSA BOISON JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>By his
decision dated 6 November 1979 (the reasons for which were given on 12 November
1979) Osei-Hwere J. (as he then was) sitting at Cape Coast set aside the sale
by public auction of the plaintiff’s house on the ground that it was unlawful,
and contravened Order 44, r. 14 of the Court’s Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.),
Sched. II. The defendants challenge this decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 23
September 1970 the first defendant recovered judgment against the plaintiff for
¢270. In execution of this judgment he applied for a writ of fifa to attach and
sell: “1. One compound house at Ntronang and at a place commonly known and
called Rest House. 2 All personal effects of the defendant-judgment debtor [now
the plaintiff].” The writ of fifa was issued in October 1970. The sale of the
house was duly advertised, but did not take place till 26 April 1972. The
second defendant was the purchaser; the third defendant was the auctioneer.
Later the second defendant resold the house to the co-defendant, Seth Alimo.
The plaintiff brought this action to set aside the sale of the house because he
contends it contravened Order 44, r. 14 of Cap. 4, and was therefore null and
void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said
Order 44, r. 14 reads:<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">“If the
judgment debtor has sufficient moveable property within the Judicial Division
in which the decree was issued to satisfy the debt, damages, and costs
recovered, his lands shall not be levied upon; but if he has not sufficient
moveable property within the Judicial Division, it shall be optional to the
execution creditor to levy upon his immovable property within the same Judicial
Division before levying on his moveable property elsewhere, or to levy upon the
moveable property of such judgment debtor wherever it may be found within
[Ghana], before having recourse to his immovable property.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In other
words, by the said provisions of Order 44, r. 14 a judgment creditor could
proceed against the immovable property of a judgment debtor only after he has
exhausted his personalty within the judicial division, or if there is proof that
the judgment debtor has no personal effects. The marginal note to Order 44, r.
14 reads: “Lands not to be levied on till goods exhausted.” Indeed, at common
law only the goods and chattels of the judgment debtor could be taken in
execution. Money and various securities for money became seizable by virtue of
section 12 of the Judgments Act, 1838 (1 &amp; 2 Vict, c. 110). Real property
cannot be seized at common law. In taking personalty the sheriff is under a
duty to take only so much, and not more than that, as is reasonably sufficient
to satisfy the judgment debt and the sheriff’s own expenses. An
“over-attachment” is actionable.<o:p></o:p>The fifa,
Form 23, Appendix A of Cap. 4 commands the sheriff in the name of the Republic:<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">“. . .
that of the moveable property of [the judgment debtor] within the . . .
Judicial Division or within the jurisdiction of the Court if the same be
sufficient, and if not, then of the moveable and immovable property of the said
[judgment debtor] you cause to be made the sum of ¢ . . . and also interest
thereon at the rate of . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>