DR. RAPHEAL ADOBOR (PLAINTIFF) vs. ELI PHARMOY LTD & ANOTHER (DEFENDANTS) [2013]DLHC7397

Date	2013-01-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BC 250/04
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC7397

HIS LORDSHIP MR. E.F. DZAKPASU (J).

KOFI KUKUBOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT-PRESNET.

NUTIFAFA NUTSUKPUI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT - PRESENT.

[2013]DLHC7397
																																						<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" >DR. RAPHEAL ADOBOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELI PHARMOY LTD &amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. BC 250/04&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: 18TH JANUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>KOFI
KUKUBOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT-PRESNET. <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">

NUTIFAFA NUTSUKPUI FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT - PRESENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

HIS LORDSHIP MR. E.F. DZAKPASU (J).<o:p></o:p>

</div>On
the 18th February, 2008 this Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff
against the Defendants in this Suit and ordered that Plaintiff be entitled to
all the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons, to Wit: <o:p></o:p>1.
The recovery of an amount of US$11,850.00 being the cost of pharmaceutical
product the Plaintiff consigned to the defendants; <o:p></o:p>2.
An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff half of the profit
realized from the sale of the drugs; <o:p></o:p>3.
Further order that the defendant deliver to the Plaintiff all the drugs unsold;
and <o:p></o:p>4.
Costs. <o:p></o:p>Pursuant
to that judgment the Plaintiff per solicitor filed an Entry of Judgment for the
following claims:— <o:p></o:p>a.
An amount of $11,850 or its cedi equivalent plus Interest at the prevailing
bank rate since July, 2002. <o:p></o:p>b.
Deliver all the unsold drugs to the Plaintiffs; <o:p></o:p>c.
Fifty percent (50%) of the profit made on the sale of the drugs; <o:p></o:p>d.
Cost - GH¢2,000.00 <o:p></o:p>e.
Cost in Cause of GH¢500 with Interest of the prevailing bank rate since May,
2006. <o:p></o:p>In
the instant Motion on Notice for an Order of Stay of Execution and to Set Aside
the Entry of Judgment aforementioned, the Defendant has expressed his
reservations that the said Entry of Judgment does not reflect the exact orders
of the Court in the Suit. Learned Counsel argued that the Plaintiff was not
supposed to recover more than he has been granted in the Judgment, and that the
Entry of Judgment filed by the Plaintiff is post - judgment. <o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Plaintiff/Respondent opposed the application, arguing INTER ALIA that
the Entry of Judgment served on the Defendant on 22nd April, 2008 was proper,
based on which the Defendant paid Plaintiffs per Counsel US$12,000 and
GH¢2550.00 in fulfillment of part of the judgment debt. Counsel submitted that
the motion is frivolous, baseless and an attempt to obstruct the course of
justice and waste the Court's time. <o:p></o:p>I
have examined the Entry of Judgment exhibited "DB2" attached to the
Defendant/Applicant's affidavit in support along side the Relief endorsed on
the Writ of Summons. Both documents are not exactly on all fours. The material
difference on the face of the documents is that the Entry of Judgment included
"interests at the prevailing bank rate since July, 2002" and
"Interest at the prevailing bank rate since May, 2006" (Items 1 and 5
resp) which two entries are not carried on the face of the Endorsements on the
Writ. <o:p></o:p>The
law is trite that an Entry of Judgment is the true recording of the Court's
final Orders. The Black's Law Dictionary defines the Entry of Judgment as the
ministerial recording of the Court's final decision. That means that an Entry
of Judgment must be the obedient recording of what orders the Court actually
gives. An Entry of Judgment shall not incorporate orders than given by the
Court. <o:p></o:p>In
this application, the fact that the Court in its judgment did not order
Interest payments is not in dispute. And that was so because the Plaintiff did
not endorse his Writ for Interests. I agree with learned Counsel for the
Defendant that the interest attached to the reliefs in the Entry of Judgment
was made by the Plaintiff post judgme</main>