FRANK MULLER vs. EOCO & ORS [2014]DLHC12103

Date	2014-01-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM/40/14
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC12103

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

ABDUL KARIM FOR APPLICANT

ALEXANDER AFENYO-MARKIN FOR RESPONDENT

[2014]DLHC12103
																																						<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" >FRANK MULLER<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EOCO &amp; ORS<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/40/14&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: 23RD&nbsp;&nbsp;JANUARY 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 25th
of November 2013, upon an application for a defreeze brought by the respondent
herein, the court under Section 38 of EOCO Act 2010, Act 804&nbsp;&nbsp; granted the application.<o:p></o:p>The respondent
herein complying with the Court’s Order, payment of the tax on the amount, proceeded
to the Bank to withdraw the monies but was refused. Learned counsel for the
respondent then filed contempt proceedings against the Bank’s Management.<o:p></o:p>On the 18th
day of December 2013, the court gave its ruling on the contempt application
brought against the Bank. There was an interesting development when the ruling
on the contempt was to be read. Learned counsel drew the court’s attention to a
motion for the arrest of the ruling Slated for 7th January 2014.<o:p></o:p>I asked counsel
for applicant herein the Order under which he was coming, but he could not give
any authority to that. He only said under my inherent jurisdiction. I observed
from the demeanor of counsel and his client s that they were nervous and afraid
they may be cited for contempt as the ruling was about to be read.<o:p></o:p>At page 5 of the
ruling on contempt, I stated thus:<o:p></o:p>“It is interesting,
though, that even when the tax clearance letter and order from the registry was
served on respondent, they were still adamant to credit the account of the
applicant. This court made a speaking order; it is no ground to further refuse
to do what the order demanded to be done even before this application was
heard”.<o:p></o:p>Further
in the said ruling,
I stated, also at page 5… “The respondent could have credited the
account before this application was moved since they had notice of the Order
and the tax payment. <o:p></o:p>In the
circumstance, I do not find any reason to commit the respondent to contempt.
They are to credit the account of the applicant forthwith”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Another procedure
had been filed by the bank again after the said ruling. This was an application
for Stay of Execution pending appeal. It must be noted that, the said motion to
arrest judgment became to me otiose. One thing must be made clear here. It is
that, the Bank never ever deposed to any affidavit in its earlier processes
that the account had been remitted to anyone. This had not been mentioned as at
4th December, 2013. I am of the opinion that, the applicant here
didn’t do due diligence.<o:p></o:p>Also, it was the
applicant (Bank) that filed Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) to the
Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and based on these, the EOCO came to court
to freeze the account. During the freezing, nobody or body of persons can do
anything relating to the account because the court had placed an injunction on
it. The applicant herein are arguing that, the amount was in a Nostro Account
held with Citi Bank and never credited to the account of the applicant. If that
were so, why should they file an STR to the FIC?<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In Act 804,
Section 36 it has the heading. Effect of Freezing Order:<o:p></o:p>“36” A contract or
other arrangement made by a person in respect of tainted property after the
issue of the freezing order is of </main>