ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED (PLAINTIFFS) vs. CONFIDENCE LINE LIMITED, DANIEL ROBERT OFFEI AND THE SHERIFF, HIGH COURT (DEFENDANT) [2001]DLHC7415

ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED (PLAINTIFFS) vs. CONFIDENCE LINE LIMITED, DANIEL ROBERT OF... [2001]DLHC7415

Date	2001-10-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC.780/2001
Citation No.	[2001]DLHC7415

HER LORDSHIP JUSTICE G. KUSI-APPOUH J.

[2001]DLHC7415
																																						<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" >ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CONFIDENCE LINE LIMITED, DANIEL ROBERT OFFEI AND THE SHERIFF,
HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. MISC.780/2001&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
26TH OCTOBER, 2001<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">

HER LORDSHIP JUSTICE G. KUSI-APPOUH,
J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>On
10/4/2001, the Plaintiff issued out a writ of summons and statement of claim
jointly and severally against the defendants herein for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>(1)
An order setting aside the execution purported to have been carried out on 20th
February 2001 against the plaintiff under Judgment and orders of the High Court
and the Court of appeal dated 14th July, Judgments of the Superior Courts 14121
Copyright © DataCenta Ltd. 1999, 15th December, 1999 and 25th February, 2001
respectively. <o:p></o:p>(2)
Damages for wrongful execution against the plaintiffs by the Defendants of the
said judgments and orders of the High Court and the Court of Appeal dated July
14th 1999, 15th December 1999, and 25th January 2001 respectively. <o:p></o:p>(3)
An order restraining to the plaintiffs the amount paid by plaintiffs in excess
of what the said judgments authorised the defendants to levy execution for. <o:p></o:p>(4)
Interest on the amount found to have been paid to the Defendants in excess from
21st February, 2001 to date of judgment at the prevailing bank rate of
interest. <o:p></o:p>On
the 4th day of July 2001 the Attorney General solicitor for the 3rd defendant
herein moved the Court to set aside the Writ of Summons under Order 12 Rule 4
of the High Court Procedure Rules against the 3rd defendant. <o:p></o:p>Mrs.
Kathleen Quartey Ayensu Chief State Attorney who represented the Attorney
General contended, inter alia, that the plaintiffs failed to serve one month’s
notice on the Attorney General as required by law. According to her, the
Sheriff is an employee of the State in the performance of his duty and
therefore 3rd defendant is a Public office holder paid out of the Consolidated
Fund. She referred the Court to the State Proceedings Act 1988 Act 555. <o:p></o:p>Learned
Counsel for plaintiffs respondent opposed the application and contended inter
alia that the Judiciary is an independent body under the 1992 Constitution of
Ghana. According to him, the Attorney General is a Minister of State and Chief
Legal Officer responsible for the actions of the executive and does not include
the Judiciary and other independent bodies like Electoral Commission and the
Administrative for Justice and Human Rights. <o:p></o:p>Chapter
Eleven of Article 125(1) of 1992 Constitution provides as follows:— <o:p></o:p>“125(1) Justice emanates from the
people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary
which shall be independent and subject only to the Constitution”. <o:p></o:p>The
above quoted Article of the Constitution clearly indicate that the Judiciary is
independent and it therefore stands to reason that actions can be taken against
its officers without involving the Attorney General who is a Minister of State
and Chief Legal Officer responsible for the actions of the Executive. See the
unreported case by Agnes Dordzie J. where the Electoral Commissioner could not
be represented by the Attorney General. See also the case of Kuenyehia versus
Archer (1992-93). <o:p></o:p>

I
do find learned Counsel for applicants view that the Judiciary is part of the
Public Services of Ghana and that the office of the Sheriff is paid out of the
Consolidated fund impressive but regardless of that fact, it is my view that
the instant action should be against the officer of the Judicial Service who is
the Deputy Sheriff. I find that the Deputy Sheriff is the proper person to be sued
for wrongful acts like executions. I therefore find the application to set
aside the writ of summons unwarranted, without merit and same is refused. Costs
of ¢500,000.00 against the defendants to the plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p></main>