K. BRAM-LARBI vs THE REGISTRAR & ORS [2009]DLHC16576

Date	2009-06-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 148/2008
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC16576

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

BRIGHT OKYERE AGYEKUM

G.A. SARPONG

[2009]DLHC16576
																																						<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" >K. BRAM-LARBI<o:p></o:p>

(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

SUIT
NO. AC 148/2008&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: 5TH
JUNE, 2009

</div>

COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>

</div>

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J. <o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

&nbsp;

The Plaintiff herein
issued a writ against the defendants herein for:<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

“1)&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the purported attachment
of plaintiff’s property plot No. 25, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Termination
Road, Dansoman allegedly in satisfaction of the judgment debt in suit No.&nbsp; C990/99 is wrongful and unjustified in law.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

2)&nbsp;&nbsp; An order releasing the said property and its
title documents to the plaintiff<o:p></o:p>

4)
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and
persons claiming through them from the said property”.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

Attached to the writ of
summons was a statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The 1st and the
2nd defendants failed to enter appearance to the writ inspite of the
fact that the writ was duly served on them.&nbsp;
The 3rd defendant entered a conditional appearance and after
a motion to set aside the writ has been refused by the court, the 3rd
defendant filed its statement of defence.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

After the filing of a
Reply, the following issues were set down for trial at the application for
directions stage. That is to say:<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

2)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the cost awarded by this
Honourable Court was US $10,000 being 10% of US $ 100,000 or more<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

3)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not after paying the US $10,000
cost into this Honourable Court and after &nbsp;same was collected by 3rd defendant
the property posted by the plaintiff as security &nbsp;could further be attached to pay any
unlawfully determined incidental cost<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

4)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not by reason of suit No. C
990/99 entitled UTC Estates Limited vs. Roger McCormack plaintiff is caught by
estoppel per res Judicata <o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

5)&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not 1st and 2nd
defendants committed trespass when they went onto plot No. 25 Termination Road,
Dansoman to purportedly carry out a court order.”<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The plaintiff gave
evidence at the trial and closed his case after cross examination.&nbsp; The 3rd defendant gave evidence
per its Managing Director and then announced the closure of its case.<o:p></o:p>