SLYMAN ENTERPRISE vs. F I C [2014]DLHC12096

Date	2014-05-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM/333/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC12096

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

ALEXANDER AFENYOR-MARKINS FOR APPLICANT

RICHARD APPIETU FOR DEFENDANT

[2014]DLHC12096
																																						<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" >SLYMAN ENTERPRISE<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>F I C<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<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 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. FTRM/333/13&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;DATE:
21ST&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>On the 11th
day of September 2013, the applicant’s account was confirmed frozen by this
Court differently constituted. The basis for confirmation was that, the F I C
received a Suspicious Transaction Report (S.T.R.) from Fidelity Bank Ghana
Limited.&nbsp; In its paragraph 7, of
Affidavit sworn to on the 9th September, the respondent further
argued that, the various amounts in excess of $7,000.00 was inconsistent with
the applicant herein’s mandate.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the 9th
day of May 2014, the applicant filed a Motion on Notice for a release of
funds.&nbsp; The applicant, deposed to an
Affidavit from paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 10 as to why the account should be
defrozen.&nbsp; In his paragraph 12, he said:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“12” The respondent has been unable to
establish that the source of the funds is tainted neither have they establish
any criminality or illegality concerning the transfer of funds into my account
yet I am being denied access to same”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In paragraphs 14
and 17, the applicant argues that, he has not been notified of the freezing by
the respondent.&nbsp; In its argument which
can be found in paragraphs 3&amp;4, the respondent stated that there were
inconsistencies in his response to the questions asked by the Bank.&nbsp; Some of the inconsistencies were:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
applicant said the funds were for the purchase of additional vehicles in
Germany but later changed to clearing of a vehicle at the port.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Further
that, the remitter was a business partner but later changed to a friend and
later said a sister’s boyfriend.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Based on these the
bank filed Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) to the F. I. C.&nbsp; On the issue of communicating of the freezing
to the applicant, the respondent say he was very aware.&nbsp; One other argument by the respondent, found
in its paragraph 12 is that “I say the Law Enforcement Agencies need
time to complete investigations into the matter including the gathering of
evidence”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;