FREDERICK ANNAN vs. JOSHUA CLOTTEY [2016]DLHC17229

Date	2016-06-26
Suit No.	SUIT RPC/39/2010
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC17229

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH

YVONNE AKUFFO ADDO

KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO

SAMMY ADDO

[2016]DLHC17229
																																						<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" >&nbsp;<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">FREDERICK ANNAN<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:211.5pt center 243.0pt;
text-autospace:none">vs.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:center 229.15pt 243.0pt left 295.5pt 319.5pt;
text-autospace:none">JOSHUA CLOTTEY<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:168.75pt 278.15pt;text-autospace:
none">&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 7.1pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YVONNE AKUFFO ADDO FOR KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR
PLAINTIFF APPLICANT<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; margin-left: 7.1pt; margin-right: 0cm;">

SAMMY ADDO FOR THE DEFENDANT RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:106.5pt;
text-autospace:none">CORAM&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;margin-bottom:
0cm;margin-left:7.1pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:
inter-ideograph;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME
NOBLE-NKRUMAH <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 7.1pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>NOTICE
OF MOTION, APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION-<o:p></o:p>On the 17/2/16 the plaintiff applicant
filed an application for an interlocutory injunction.&nbsp; In arguing this motion counsel for the
plaintiff applicant has stressed that the present application is hinged on
asset preservation, retention and realisation when the applicant eventually
gets to execute the judgement he already has and for which decision he seeks
appeal against, therefore having identified an asset, which is very important,
the effective way will be for this court to make defendants deposit title deeds
to the property in question in court.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff applicant’s case briefly
is that he has a judgment against the defendant respondent herein and
dissatisfied with the quantum of damages awarded him in the said judgment, he
has filed a notice of appeal. In anticipation of a higher quantum being ordered
by the appellate court, the applicant seeks from this court an order
restraining the respondent from dealing with the property he has identified in
ways which will render the anticipated decision nugatory. His application comes
in the nature of a Mareva injunction.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In opposing this Defendant respondent filed
affidavit in opposition on 29/2/16 and says the present application amounts to
a prohibitive injunction and that the applicant appears to be going into
execution as this application affects the interest of the respondent after
judgement. Respondent argues that the applicant must enter judgment before he
can go into execution. Respondent has made references to Order 43 Rule 1 &nbsp;CI 47on enforcement of judgment for payment of
money and Order 49 Rule 1 sub 5 CI 47 on charging orders.<o:p></o:p>Presently the applicant has not gone
into execution otherwise there would be no point appealing the decision of the
court in the substantive matter. To this extent the orders referred to by the
respondent, do not come to play.<o:p></o:p>Mareva injunctions are essentially the
offspring of equity. They are injunctions that freeze assets. They are
considered extra ordinary as the general rule is that there should be no execution
before judgment. Traditionally therefore it has been at the commencement of an
action that a party may seek this relief from the court on the basis that the
debtor may dispose of his assets so as to defeat it before judgment.<o:p></o:p>Over the years this hitherto
prejudgement relief has been extended to a post- judgment application.
Plaintiff applicant counsel has referred this court to a short article Mareva
Injunctions: they’re not just for pre-judgment anymore. In this article reference is made to
some Canadian cases supporting the use of this tool after ruling on the merits
of a case.<o:p></o:p>