VICTORIA DEDE AYIKU (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. ANDREW AYIKU & 3 OTHERS (DEFENDANTS) AND NEW STAR CO. LTD [2016]DLCA4776

VICTORIA DEDE AYIKU (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. ANDREW AYIKU & 3 OTHER... [2016]DLCA4776

Date	2016-11-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H3/30/2017
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4776

BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU J.A

[2016]DLCA4776
																																						<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" >VICTORIA
DEDE AYIKU<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANDREW
AYIKU &amp; 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>AND NEW STAR CO. LTD (CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF
APPEAL, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H3/30/2017 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;23RD
NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU J.A<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-left:3.0in;mso-add-space:
auto;text-align:center;text-indent:-3.0in;mso-pagination:widow-orphan lines-together;
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
Claimant/Appellant/Applicant herein has brought an application for the
suspension of execution of the judgment of the High Court dated 22nd
April 2015 and the decision in respect of an interpleader action dated 18th
July 2016.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
their affidavit in support of the application, the Claimant deposed to the fact
that on 22nd April 2015, the High Court delivered a default judgment
against the 4th Defendant, the Managing Director of the
Claimant/Appellant /Applicant. On 18th July 2016, the High Court summarily
determined an interpleader action filed before it and dismissed same. Dissatisfied
with this decision, the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Relating
to the judgment of the Court dated 22nd April 2015, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
on 9th June 2015, filed an entry of judgment. Subsequently, in
October 2015, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent attached the sixteen (16)
shops (“the property”) constructed by the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant on the
disputed land. The Claimant stated that their interest in the property is
evidenced by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the current Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s
senior father and witnessed by the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent herein. The
MOU, they stated further, is conclusive evidence of the Claimant’s interest in
the property. The property is occupied by tenants placed in by the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant.
Claimant also stated that on 25th July 2016, the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant
filed a motion for interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the
appeal. On 11th October 2016, the High Court dismissed the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant’s
said application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
is thus the case of the Applicant that unless this Court suspends the judgment
of the High Court and by necessary implication the decision in the interpleader
action, the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent will change the status quo and
raise the structure to the ground to the irretrievable detriment of the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant.
That, they have been advised that the there are exceptional circumstances to
warrant the grant of this application to obviate a situation in which a
successful appeal shall be rendered nugatory.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent on the other hand contended in her affidavit in
opposition that the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in the original suit
was served on all the Defendants, including the 4th Defendant, who
is the Managing Director and majority shareholder of the
Claimant/Appellant/Applicant.&nbsp; In their
Statement of Defence, the 4th Defendant averred that the land had
been leased to him and by implication not to the Applicant herein. Even though
the 4th Defendant was served either personally or through his Lawyer
at all times, he never attended Court when the Court had set down the suit for
hearing.&nbsp; The Court consequently
proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of the Defendants and took the
evidence of the Plaintiff.&nbsp; The Court
granted judgment in favour of the Plaintiff on her claim, on 22nd
April 2015. The Entry of Judgment was served on the Defendants and all occupants/tenants
of the property. Subsequently, an order of possession was obtained from the
Court.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Respondent also contended that the MOU relied upon by the Applicant did not
transfer any interest in land. That, the Applicant, even though it was clearly
aware of the suit, elected not to join or disclose any interest it may
have.&nbsp; It was only after judgment was
delivered that the Applicant, in a desperate attempt to stultify the execution
process and in bad faith, brought the interpleader summons which was dismissed
by the High Court.&nbsp; The Applicant
subsequently filed a Motion on Notice for </main>