AMALGAMATED BANK LTD vs. KADABOT LTD & 2 ORS [2013]DLHC12073

Date	2013-04-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTR 2/10
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12073

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

ADU KUSI WITH GLORIA GYAN DUAH FOR APPLICANT

GEORGETTE FRANCOIS FOR RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC12073
																																						<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" >AMALGAMATED BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KADABOT LTD &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FTR 2/10&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: 22ND&nbsp;&nbsp;APRIL 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <o:p></o:p>ADU
KUSI WITH GLORIA GYAN DUAH FOR APPLICANT,<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is a repeat application by the
applicant for leave to review the reserved price. The present reserved price
after the review by the Court is GH¢450,00.00. The applicant want further
downward review to GH¢400,000. One Alex Aduajoe the licenced auctioneer deposed
to an affidavit to the effect that, the highest bid was at GH¢400,000.00<o:p></o:p>When this second application was
brought, the respondent filed a valuation report dated 30th January
2012. I have looked at the various processes filed before this Court ever since
this matter cropped up. It is interesting that, when the Court even did the
first review, the respondent never informed this Court that there was a second
valuation report which he had acquired.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In fact, there was no mention of this
valuation report to the Court. At best, the issue of a second valuation report
should have been brought to the notice of the Court. What happened here can
best be described as smuggling of a document through the back door. I do not
think this is the right procedure.&nbsp; I
frown over it, and I believe any Judge will not be happy about this.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This Court has tolerated the respondent
enough. The Court has given much time for the respondent to pay up but failed.
It is a long standing position that, a judgment creditor should enjoy his
fruits of labour. The applicant has long been starved.<o:p></o:p>

Today I am of the considered opinion
that the respondent has not shown good faith in this bargain. I hereby further
grant a downward review of the reserved price to GH¢400,000<o:p></o:p></main>