EOCO vs IBRAHIM MOHAMM ,FAROUK MOHAMMED [2014]DLHC12082

Date	2014-05-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM/104/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC12082

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

JOHN AMPONTUAH KUMAH FOR APPLICANT

PLANGE RHULE FOR RESPONDENT

[2014]DLHC12082
																																						<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" >EOCO&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>IBRAHIM MOHAMM<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>FAROUK MOHAMMED<o:p></o:p>(INTERESTED PARTY)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;">

SUIT NO. FTRM/104/13&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; DATE:
7TH&nbsp;&nbsp;MAY 2014<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><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 present
application had been brought, when an earlier application had been ruled
upon.&nbsp; The argument had been that, one
Farouk Mohammed, whom the amount was said to belong, had not been traced.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Subsequently,
Farouk Mohammed surfaced and filed processes that he is an interested party and
he is not faceless.&nbsp; The Court, during
arguments which bordered on the real identity of the applicant requested for an
identity.&nbsp; This was also a requirement
that EOCO also prayed for.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The respondent
argued that the remitter expressed the desire to get his money back.&nbsp; However, the remitting bank said so.&nbsp; The exhibit allegedly obtained from the FBI
had cancellations.&nbsp; There is no
explanation as to why such had been done.&nbsp;
The document so attached did not also indicate that fraud had been
committed on the remitter.&nbsp; The
respondent did not call any person from the FBI to give evidence or depose to
an affidavit as to the contents that had been attached.&nbsp; The said document is also restricted.&nbsp; It would have helped the respondent’s case if
further evidence had been supplied to this Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The interviewer
could have deposed to an affidavit to be filed in this Court.&nbsp; This, I do not have.&nbsp; The document relied on heavily by the
respondent had not also been signed by anyone.&nbsp;
The question so far asked and answers given by the remitter suggest he
doesn’t understand anything.&nbsp; Also, no
charges have been brought against Ibrahim Mohammed all these months.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The account had
been frozen since 7th February, 2013.&nbsp; Over 12 months no charges have been filed as
required by Act 804.&nbsp; There has not been any application to
extend the freezing period.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

From the
foregoing, I hereby order immediate defreezing of the account and grant the
interested party and applicant access to the money standing in the name of the
applicant.<o:p></o:p></main>