PRESSING NEEDS (PLAINTIFF) vs. STAR ASSURANCE (DEFENDANT) AND QUALITY INSURANCE (PLAINTIFF) vs. STAR ASSURANCE (DEFENDANT) [2015]DLHC7268

PRESSING NEEDS (PLAINTIFF) vs. STAR ASSURANCE (DEFENDANT) AND QUALITY INSURANCE... [2015]DLHC7268

Date	2015-12-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO.INS/8/12
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC7268

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

S.K. AMOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

AYIKOI OTOO WITH NAA DZAMAH OTOO AND JOYCELYN NAA AMARLEY ASHITEY FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2015]DLHC7268
																																						<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" >PRESSING
NEEDS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STAR
ASSURANCE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>QUALITY
INSURANCE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STAR
ASSURANCE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), 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">

SUIT NO.INS/8/12&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: 9TH DECEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>S.K.
AMOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF <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">

AYIKOI
OTOO WITH NAA DZAMAH OTOO AND JOYCELYN NAA AMARLEY ASHITEY FOR THE DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 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-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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The core issue which I am to adjudicate upon in
this application is as to whether or not the vehicles the subject-matter of
dispute should be sold and the money paid into court to prevent further
deterioration.&nbsp; The applicant, Quality
Insurance Company Limited contends that the vehicles are exposed to the
vagaries of the weather and are deteriorating.<o:p></o:p>I have read the affidavits filed by the parties for
and against the motion.&nbsp; I have given
consideration to the oral submissions made by both counsel.&nbsp; Thoughtful consideration has been given to
the principles governing applications of this nature and the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I.47 where it is provided in order 25 rules 2(1) and
4(1) as follows:-<o:p></o:p>‘2(1) on the application of any party to a cause or
matter the court may make an order for the detention, custody or preservation
of any property which is the subject-matter of the cause or matter or in
respect of which any question may arise in the actions, or may order the
inspection of any such property in the possession of a party.’<o:p></o:p>4(1) The court may, on the application of any party
to a cause or matter, make an order for the sale by the applicant in such
manner and on such terms as may be specified in the order of any perishable
property which is the subject matter of the cause or matter or as to which any
question arises therein and which for any other good reason it is desirable to sell
forthwith.’<o:p></o:p>The main contention of the applicant is that the
vehicles have been exposed to the vagaries of the weather and that if they are
not disposed of they&nbsp; may go to waste and
by the end of the litigation, the value would not be commensurate to litigation
effort; (see paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the motion).<o:p></o:p>Having examined the pleadings and other processes
filed, I can conveniently infer that the vehicles are in the custody of the
applicant for safe keeping pending the final determination of the case.&nbsp; That being the case one would have expected
that the applicant will rather take the initiative for the preservation of the
vehicles against the vagaries of the weather instead of exposing them to the
weather.&nbsp; In any case, the sale of
properties the subject matter of dispute as a means of preservation fall under
Order 25 Rule 4(1) of CI.47.<o:p></o:p>The question therefore is, are the vehicles the
subject matter of the action perishable property?<o:p></o:p>A perishable property, in the commercial sense, is
that which, from its nature, decays in a short space of time, without reference
to the care it receives; (see Illinois C.R. Co. Vrs McClelland, 54 ILL.58, 67
(ILL.1870).<o:p></o:p>In the case of Re Pedlow, 209 F. 841 (2nd
CIR. N.Y. 1913) the court defined perishable properties as:<o:p></o:p>