E & CO.383 FRANKLIN STREET BLOOMFIED vs. ENCOL LIMITED, EDWARD KRAMPAH AND SUSAN AMOAH ALEX KOFI COLEMAN [2016]DLCA4641

E & CO.383 FRANKLIN STREET BLOOMFIED vs. ENCOL LIMITED, EDWARD KRAMPAH AND SUSAN... [2016]DLCA4641

Date	2016-06-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/1/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4641

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.

FRANK NARTEY FOR APPELLANT

KWAKU YEBOAH APPIAH FOR RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA4641
																																						<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" >E &amp; CO.383 FRANKLIN
STREET BLOOMFIED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ENCOL LIMITED, EDWARD
KRAMPAH AND SUSAN AMOAH<o:p></o:p>&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; (DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>ALEX KOFI COLEMAN<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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.H1/1/2016&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: 27TH
JUNE, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FRANK NARTEY FOR APPELLANT<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">

KWAKU
YEBOAH APPIAH FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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">

AYEBI
J.A. (PRESIDING), TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A., DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Appellant in
this matter sued three Defendants and obtained judgment. He then attached H/No
Plot 70, Block E, Kwadaso South, Kumasi in execution of the judgment. The 1st
Defendant/Judgment/Debtor had executed a mortgage over the property as security
for the debt over which judgment had been obtained and this was ostensibly the
reason why the Appellant attached the property.<o:p></o:p>The claimant Respondent
filed a claim to the attached property on the ground that he had a joint
interest in the property. His position was that the property was willed to him,
other siblings, and the 3rd Defendant/Judgment/Debtor by their
father. As such, the property could not be mortgaged by the 3rd
judgment debtor acting through the 1st judgment debtor without his
consent, and could not be disposed off in settlement of the 3rd
Defendant/Judgment/Debtor’s debt because of his joint interest. <o:p></o:p>His claim was resisted by
the Appellant and the competing claims were set down in an interpleader action
and settled through trial. After the trial, the judge gave his judgment setting
aside the attachment.&nbsp; The final
paragraphs of the judgment, which were reproduced in the Appellant counsel’s
submissions before this court are significant and I set them down here
verbatim.<o:p></o:p>‘There
is no evidence before me that after the property vested in the beneficiaries
they went ahead to divide the vacant land which forms part and parcel of the
house put up by their father among themselves. <o:p></o:p>I
believe they did not do so in order to protect their joint interest in the
remaining vacant land. Thus each of the beneficiaries had equal right/interest
in the vacant land. This therefore means even though Susana had the right to
put up the office complex on that portion of land she only has a life interest
in same.<o:p></o:p>For
this reason she should have sought the consent of the other beneficiaries
before using same as security<o:p></o:p>For
this reason this court cannot carve out the office complex and order its sale
in execution of the judgment<o:p></o:p>For
this reason I enter judgment for the Claimant’<o:p></o:p>Apart from my indication
that these words are significant to the evaluation of the appeal, I do not much
agree with Appellant counsel on the language, expressions and tenor of his
submissions. <o:p></o:p>