THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC & ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE, OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE, ACCRA. vs SIAT GHANA LIMITED AND GHANA OIL PALM DEV. CO. LTD ACCRA [2012]DLHC4195

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC & ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE, OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE,... [2012]DLHC4195

Date	2012-04-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM/16/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC4195

HIS LORDSHIP MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

STANLEY AMARTEFIO FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS

DR PHILIP ANDERSON FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

[2012]DLHC4195
																																						<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" >THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ECONOMIC &amp; ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE, OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE, ACCRA.<o:p></o:p>vs<o:p></o:p>SIAT GHANA LIMITED AND
GHANA OIL PALM DEV. CO. LTD ACCRA.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FINANCIAL DIVISION 1), 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">

SUIT NO. FTRM/16/2011&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: 30TH APRIL, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>STANLEY
AMARTEFIO FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS<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">

DR
PHILIP ANDERSON FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>APPLICATION
TO REVOKE A FREEZING ORDER<o:p></o:p>In
this Ruling, I shall refer to the Economic&amp;Organised Crime Office simply as
the “Applicant/Respondent” whilst
referring to Siat Ghana Limited and Ghana Oil Palm Development Co. Ltd as the
“Respondents/Applicants”.<o:p></o:p>This
is an application brought under S 39 of the Economic &amp;Organised Crime
Office&nbsp; Act, 2010 (Act 804) by the
Respondents/Applicants seeking to revoke the conformation order freezing the
accounts of the respondents/applicantsby the Executive Director of the
Applicant/Respondent Office.&nbsp; That
provision of the law isreproduced here below:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“39 (1) A person who claims an interest in
property which is the subject of a freezing order shall apply to the court for
a review of the order on notice to the Executive Director, within fourteen days
after the issue of the freezing order.”<o:p></o:p>The
grounds on which the applicationis premised are catalogued in the accompanying
affidavit and further affidavits filed supplemental to the original affidavit
filed on 02/03/11 in support of the motion.<o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the respondents/applicants as deposed to in the affidavit sworn
to by Patrick DankwaAnin, the company secretary of the 2nd respondents that
they were never served with a copy of the order of the court made on 02/12/10
confirming the freezing directive by the Applicant/Respondent.&nbsp; According to the deponent, those accounts,
the subject matter of the freezing order did not contain any tainted property
within the meaning of the relevant law neither have those accounts been used by
the 2nd respondents/applicants for the alleged offences.&nbsp; On the contrary, the accounts were used
purposely to facilitate payments to their workers, farmers and suppliers, he
added.<o:p></o:p>In
moving the application, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Applicants Mr
Stanley Amartefio relied on the following affidavits:<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Affidavit filed on 02/03/11;<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Affidavit of Freda Bruce Appiah filed on
11/03/11;<o:p></o:p>iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Further supplementary affidavit filed on
15/03/11; and<o:p></o:p>iv)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Further supplementary affidavit filed on
12/03/12.<o:p></o:p>Having
referred the court to S. 39(1) of Act 804 MrAmartefio submitted most forcefully
that the respondents/applicants were never served with the confirmation order
as directed by the court but that the respondents/applicants rather got to know
of the order subsequently.&nbsp; That,
according to him, accounts for the application not being brought within 14days
from the date of the order.<o:p></o:p>Learned
Counsel further referred to the Affidavit In Opposition filed on 11/03/11
particularly paragraph 4 and submitted that that was an admission by the
Applicant/respondent that the respondents/applicants were never personally
served with the confirmation order.&nbsp; He
then referred to S 38(1) of Act 804 and argued that where investigations were
commenced against a person who was affected by a freezing order but was not
charged within 12months after the commencement of the investigations, the court
was duty bound to discharge the order. <o:p></o:p>Relaying
that provision of the law to the facts of this instant case, Mr Amarteifio
argued that the Applicant/Respondent has till date not preferred any charges
against the respondents/applicants nor brought any application for an extension
of the confirmation order.&nbsp; He opined
that if the proper approach to interpretation was resorted to, it meant that
the court order made on 02/12/10 ought to be discharged.&nbsp; He maintained that by S 39 of Act 804 the
intention of the lawmaker showed that the confirmation was not meant to last
perpetually.<o:p></o:p>MrAmarteifio
then referred to the supplementary affidavits and stated, inter alia, that the
respondents/applicants had reached a settlement with S.S.N.I.T with regard to
their workers’ contributions.&nbsp; The Ghana
Revenue Authority has also conceded that the respondents/applicants have
overpaid their tax liability between 2000-2009. <o:p></o:p>Concluding,
learned Counsel submitted that the effect of the freezing order on the business
of the respondents/applicant was that their business has virtually grounded to
a halt.&nbsp; He therefore prays that the
order be vacated.<o:p></o:p>I
need to put it on record that the application is being opposed by the
applicant/ respondent.&nbsp; Consequently,
Affidavit In Opposition filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent on 11/03/11
as well as Supplementary Affidavit together with its annexures filed on
22/03/11</main>