DADZIE vs. AMOAKO (ANOKYE-CLAIMANT) [2004]DLCA974

Date	2004-06-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA974

ARYEETEY JA

AMONOO-MONNEY JA

ANIM JA

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE APPELLANT.

KWAME ASIEDU BASOA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2004]DLCA974
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">DADZIE<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AMOAKO (ANOKYE-CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 569<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

KWAME
ASIEDU BASOA FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

ARYEETEY,
AMONOO-MONNEY AND ANIM JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Aryeetey JA.<o:p></o:p>A brief
background to the interpleader summons which has resulted in this appeal is as
follows: On 12 April 1991 the appellant, who is the plaintiff-judgment
creditor, obtained judgment against the defendant-judgment debtor, Yaw Amoako
in the sum DM 12,039 plus damages of 0200,000 and costs of 050,000. On 31
October 1991, pursuant to praecipe for the issue of a writ of fi.fa, a plot No
28A, Block IX, Gyinyase, Kumasi, the property of the judgment debtor, was
attached in execution of the said judgment. On 18 November 1991 the sheriff
issued an order prohibiting alienation of the property attached (exhibit 4). He
also issued a notice of auction. The sheriff’s officer attached property No
28A, Block IX, Gyinyase by serving a copy of exhibit 4 on the judgment debtor,
Yaw Amoako, and by affixing another copy on the property to be attached. On 25
November 1991 the sheriff entrusted the conduct of the auction sale to a
licensed auctioneer.<o:p></o:p>Subsequent
to these processes, the judgment debtor on 9 July 1992 issued a receipt for
c2,500,000 in favour of Rexford Kyei Anokye, the claimant in the interpleader
summons and the respondent in this appeal, being the price of the attached
property purchased by the respondent. According to the receipt, the money was
supposed to have been received by the judgment debtor on 10 July 1992. The
receipt for the payment of the purchase price was followed by a statutory
declaration dated 28 August 1992 from the defendant-judgment debtor reciting a
transfer by him of the property to the respondent. On 30 October 1992 the
respondent filed notice of his claim, which the appellant disputed by notice
dated 11 November 1992. The High Court heard the case and gave judgment in
favour of the respondent in respect of his “reliefs sought in the interpleader
claim.”<o:p></o:p>Originally,
the appellant filed only one ground of appeal, namely “The decision is against
the weight of the evidence.” He, however, filed four additional grounds of
appeal as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “The learned trial judge erred
in law when he held that the purported sale by the judgment debtor of the
attached property was lawful and upheld his claim. His lordship thereby ignored
the provisions of Order 43, rr 7, 10 and 11 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (LN 140A). <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2). The learned trial judge erred
in law when he held that the claimant was a bona fide purchaser for value of
the property without notice. There was no evidence that the claimant acquired
the legal title in the property. <o:p></o:p>