BIGLEBB CONST. & CRUSHING LTD. vs. NAVOO ENTERPRISE & ANOTHER [2015]DLHC9051

Date	2015-11-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/244/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC9051

LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

RANDALL OBENG SAKYI ESQ. OBENG-SAKYI & SOGBODJOR FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

ANTHONY NAMOO ESQ. LAW TEMPLE FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLHC9051
																																						<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" >BIGLEBB CONST. &amp; CRUSHING&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NAVOO ENTERPRISE &amp; ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. RPC/244/2015&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: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>RANDALL OBENG SAKYI, ESQ.,
OBENG-SAKYI &amp; SOGBODJOR FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:-1.15pt">

ANTHONY
NAMOO, ESQ., LAW TEMPLE FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>LADYSHIP
JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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>In this application, the Plaintiff/Applicant
(hereinafter, called the “Applicant”) seeks an order of this Court for the
interim preservation of all monies standing to the credit of the
Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter, the “Respondents”) with Messrs Contrutora
OAS Limited (hereinafter, “OAS Ltd.”).&nbsp;
The application has been brought under Order 25 rule 2(3) of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter, “C.I. 47”).<o:p></o:p>The contention of the
Applicant is that Respondents had a contract to supply granite chippings to OAS
Ltd., and in or around April 2015, Respondents subcontracted same to
Applicant.&nbsp; It appears from the facts
that the terms of this subcontract were that Applicant was required to supply
the granite chippings to OAS Ltd. on behalf of the Respondents who would then
pay the Applicant for the chippings so delivered.&nbsp; Applicant states that based on its contract
with the Respondents, it supplied granite chippings totaling GH¢419,905.56 to
OAS on behalf of Respondents, out of which amount Respondents have paid only
GH¢90,000.00 leaving a balance due and unpaid of GH¢329,905.56. Applicant
states that on 17th September, 2015, it commenced proceedings
against the Respondents for the recovery of this sum of money, among other
reliefs. Respondents, though not denying this contractual arrangement with the
Applicant and the amount paid to Applicant thus far, dispute the total cost of
chippings supplied.&nbsp; It is the
Respondents’ case that the chippings supplied by the Applicant was to the tune
of GH¢322,857.25.<o:p></o:p>It is Applicant’s case,
additionally, that when all efforts to get the Respondents to pay up failed, it
reached out to OAS Ltd. which confirmed that they presently hold the sum of
GH¢160,218.56 on behalf of the Respondents, being the balance outstanding to be
paid to the Respondents under the contract between OAS and the Respondents for
the granite supplied by Applicant on the latter’s behalf.&nbsp; It is this sum of money that Applicant seeks
an order of the court to preserve in the interim pending the final
determination of its suit against the Respondents.&nbsp; Applicant contends in its application that if
this money is not preserved and is paid out to Respondents, Respondents will
dissipate the funds without paying Applicant what is due and owed to it.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents oppose the
present application on the main ground that the funds Applicant seeks to
preserve is not the subject matter of the dispute between the parties, it being
held by a party who is a stranger to the suit.<o:p></o:p>I have read the application
and the affidavits for and against the grant of same.&nbsp; I have also examined the written submissions
filed by both Counsel in the case setting out their respective positions on
this matter. Thoughtful consideration has also been given to the provisions of
the C.I. 47, the case law and the principles governing the grant or otherwise
of an order for the interim preservation of funds.<o:p></o:p>The portions of Order 25 of
C.I. 47 which are relevant to the determination of this application state 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 action, or may order the
inspection of any such property in the possession of a party. <o:p></o:p>(3)
Where the right of a party to a specific fund is disputed, the Court may, on
the application of a party to the cause or matter, order the fund to be paid
into court or otherwise secured. <o:p></o:p>(4)
An order under this rule may be made on such terms as the Court considers just.” <o:p></o:p>The sole issue arising from
the facts of this case which requires my adjudication in this application is
whether or not this court can order a stranger to the action to deposit a
certain amount, which amount is not the subject matter of the suit between the
parties, into court for preservation pending the final det</main>