GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GH) LTD vs. CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD AND OTHERS [2016]DLHC3589

GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GH) LTD vs. CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD AND OTH... [2016]DLHC3589

Date	2016-05-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/0232/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3589

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2016]DLHC3589
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">GUARANTY
TRUST BANK (GH) LTD<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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.CM/0232/2016&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 16TH MAY, 2016 <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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is the first in a Siamese twin like applications
for the appointment of a receiver that the applicant has made before the court. This application has been rooted under section
16 of the Mortgages Act, NRCD 96. The applicant seeks for an order for the
appointment of John Fiam Coblavie of A. D &amp; Associates as the receiver by
collecting rents in respect of a parcel of land situate at the industrial area,
Tema which said property was used as security for the loan which defendants
have defaulted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant/respondents have opposed the application
not because they do not owe the plaintiff/ applicant but on a claim that the
applicant gave its word to them that the applicant will not insist on its legal
rights to call in the facilities. And flowing from that it had acted on those
promises and assurances. Being an application that was fought on affidavit
evidence, the learned counsel for applicant sought to cross examine the
deponent, Nabil Moukarzel. The court nonetheless refused that prayer as it
deemed that the deposition was not to play much significant role in the grant
or refusal of this application. Be that as it may the applicant has denied this
deposition in a further supplementary affidavit filed in support of the
application by one Miss Ikeduba. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Examining the opposition to this application, counsel
for the respondents’ material substance of opposition is to the effect that if
the application was to be granted it would further cripple the activities of
the defendants as 5th defendant has rented out the property to the 4th
defendant. However, counsel claims that as they are all of the same sister
companies, the 5th defendant, notwithstanding the tenancy agreement
is not collecting rent from the 4th defendant. <o:p></o:p>As far as I appreciate the law under which the
application has been mounted under section 16 of the Mortgages Act, NRCD 96,
the claim of the respondent is not a basis for consideration at all in an application
of such nature. The respondents admit that there had been a failure of
performance of their obligations under the mortgage agreement. The 4th
defendant/respondent also do not dispute the fact of the use of the Industrial
property as security for the loan. The combined effect of section 16 of the
Mortgages Act, NRCD 96 and Order 27 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
C. I. 47 leaves me in no doubt that the applicant has made out a solid case for
the grant of the application for the appointment of a receiver in respect of
the property used as security for the repayment of the loans.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly John Fiam- Coblavie of A.D &amp; Associate
is appointed as receiver and the court proceeds to set out the perimeters of
his functions:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He is to take possession of the property and collect
from the property rent due the 5th defendant<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">including arrears accruing from the mortgaged
property. He is to give valid receipts for all rents collected, and to do any
other act necessary or proper to manage the property including the making of
repairs and improvements. If he needs to undertake such repairs of the property
he may need the prior approval of the court.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The rent to be collected by the receiver shall be
applied in the following manner:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(a) in discharge of all
rents, taxes, rates and other required outgoings affecting the mortgaged
property;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-</main>