MCS INTERNATIONAL LTD vs. YURI-M PLASTICPRODUCT (GH.) LTD & THE TRUST BANK [2013]DLCA6985

Date	2013-03-14
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. H1/171/2011
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA6985

AKAMBA J. B. (PRESIDING)

DORDZIE A. (MRS.) (JUSTICE OF APPEAL)

GYAN K. (JUSTICE OF APPEAL)

MR. MAXWELL K. LOGAN FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS

MS. MADONNA JAMILA MALIK FOR CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA6985
																																						<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" >MCS INTERNATIONAL LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YURI-M PLASTICPRODUCT (GH.) LTD &amp; THE TRUST BANK<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/ CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. H1/171/2011&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: 14TH
MARCH 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. MAXWELL K. LOGAN FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS<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="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;tab-stops:331.5pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MS. MADONNA JAMILA MALIK
FOR CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>AKAMBA
J. B.&nbsp; (PRESIDING), DORDZIE A. (MRS.)
(JUSTICE OF APPEAL), GYAN K. (JUSTICE OF APPEAL)<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AKAMBA, JSC:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the ruling of the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra on
19th August 2010 upholding the claimant/respondent’s claim in an
interpleader action against properties taken in execution of a consent judgment
entered against Yuri M Plastics Products (Gh.) Ltd, the Defendant/Judgment
Debtor herein by the said High Court.<o:p></o:p>The
brief under pinning facts to this appeal arise from an action by the
plaintiff/judgment creditor/appellant (herein after simply the appellant)
against the defendant/judgment /debtor (herein after simply the defendant) at
the High Court, Commercial division for a liquidated sum on 8th
January 2008. The High Court, on 18th September 2008 entered consent
judgment in favour of the appellant. The appellant initiated execution process
by a writ of Fieri Facias which was sealed on 10th March 2009
leading to the attachment of the properties and machinery belonging to the
defendant. On 7th April 2009, the Claimant/respondent (herein after
simply the claimant) filed in the High Court a notice claiming interest in the
properties taken in execution of the judgment debt. <o:p></o:p>In
a resultant interpleader proceeding, the claimant led evidence to show that the
properties taken in execution of the judgment debt had been offered to him (the
claimant) by the defendant as security for the repayment of credit facilities
extended to defendant by the claimant on 22nd July 2008. The High
Court on 19th August 2010 upheld the claimant’s submissions and set
aside the attachment of the properties by the Sheriff in execution of the
judgment earlier entered for the appellant. Against the foregoing decision the
appellant filed three grounds of appeal namely:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the learned trial judge erred in law when he upheld the validity of the
mortgage held by the claimant over the immovable assets of the defendant in the
face of the clear and admitted evidence that the mortgage had not been
registered as enjoined by statute.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
II.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
learned trial judge erred in law when he upheld the validity of the debenture
held by the claimants over moveable assets of the defendants in the face of the
clear failure to register the charge created as enjoined by statute.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;
III.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the debenture and mortgage
created a right in the claimants which ranked higher and had priority than the
judgment given in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.<o:p></o:p>