EASTEL GHANA LTD. vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FIC [2013]DLHC15062

Date	2013-10-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM 12/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC15062

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE AJET-NASAM

ALEX MARKIN FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

R. APIETU FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC15062
																																						<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" >EASTEL GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FIC<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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: 0in 0in 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FTRM
12/13&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;&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:
21ST OCTOBER 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>ALEX
MARKIN FOR PLAINTIFF/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: 0in 0in 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE 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 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;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">&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;
RULING <o:p></o:p>

</div>The
applicant has filed an application to defreeze the dollar and cedis accounts
held with the Zenith Bank. In their own confession, the applicant admitted that
there is a problem with their cedi account but not the dollar.&nbsp; They are therefore urging the court to
defreeze the dollar account but hold fast the cedi account.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent opposes the application and stated investigations are ongoing and as
such the accounts should remain frozen. It is not automatic that the court will
grant an application to confirm freezing. The court has discretion.<o:p></o:p>Under
Section 35(1) of Act 804, it provides:<o:p></o:p>35(1)
Where an application is made for a freezing order, the court shall issue the
order if it is satisfied that <o:p></o:p>(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; The respondent is being investigated
for a serious offence.<o:p></o:p>(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; There are reasonable grounds to believe
that the property is tainted property related to a serious offence amongst
others.<o:p></o:p>Reading
Act 804 and Act 749 together I am of the humble opinion that, the court has
discretion in matters as to freeze and defreeze. In this instant case, I will
exercise my discretion and refuse the application to defreeze to enable the
security agencies to complete investigation in this case. Case law during the
past ten years shows that draconian legal standards have been upheld by UK
Court in determining money laundering case. In the case of R. V Tivnan [1999] 1
Cr App R (s) 92, Tivnan appealed against the variation of a&nbsp; confiscation order against his property which
has been acquired by honest means after a confiscation order had been issued.
He argued that what he had acquired honestly should not be taken into account
when determining an application for an increase in the amount to be recovered
and he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
During post-conviction hearing, the crown applied for an increased confiscation
order reflecting the increase is value of Tivnan’s realistic property. He
appealed against the variation of the confiscation order, arguing that assets
which had been acquired by honest means after a confiscation order has been
made could not be taken into account in applying to recover an increase amount.
Dismissing the appeal, Rose LJ Characterized the legislation as a means by
which “drug dealers can be deprived of their assets until they have diverged
all equivalent to all the benefit which has accrued to them in the drug
dealing” .<o:p></o:p>Also
in R vrs. Smith (David Cadman) 2001 Appeal cases, the court took a similarly
hard-line approach to the defendant who has a confiscation order made against
him after struggling cigarettes past a custom post only to be caught and
deprived of them shortly afterward. The House of Lords h</main>