MERLIN SHIPPING AGENTS vs. AKWASI AGYEMANG AND AFUA ANTWIWAA AND ANOTHER [2017]DLHC4114

Date	2017-05-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INTS 12/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4114

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

STEPHEN OPPONG FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR

ALFRED ANNIM QUARSHIE FOR CLAIMANT

[2017]DLHC4114
																																						<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" >MERLIN SHIPPING AGENTS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AKWASI AGYEMANG AND AFUA ANTWIWAA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. INTS 12/2017&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; DATE:
5TH
MAY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN OPPONG FOR
PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR <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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling seeks to
determine the merit of the legal objection to the propriety of a joint
affidavit of interest filed by the claimants herein on 28th April,
2017.<o:p></o:p>On 26th April,
2017 the court granted the claimants a 7 day extension period within which to
file their particulars of claim in the instant interpleader action. It is based
on this order that the claimants filed the aforesaid affidavit of interest.<o:p></o:p>When the matter came up
for hearing on 8th May, 2017, counsel for the plaintiff/judgment
creditor raised legal objection to the propriety of the joint affidavit before
this court.<o:p></o:p>The gravamen of counsel’s
objection is to the effect that the affidavit of interest filed by the
claimants is not in compliance with the order of the court made under Order 48
rule 6 (1) of C.I. 47. Counsel argued that it is inappropriate for the
claimants to file an affidavit of interest while they have been ordered by the
court to file particulars of claim. Counsel argued that under Order 48 rule 4,
it is only an applicant who can file an affidavit in an interpleader suit.
Counsel prayed that the joint affidavit of interest filed should be struck out,
as same is incompetent.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the claimants
is opposed to the preliminary legal object. He relied on Order 48 rules1(a), 4
and 6. Counsel submitted that by the provisions of the rules particularly rule
4 the applicant as used refers to the claimant. He argued that the claimants
are showing their interest in the property per the affidavit of interest. The
affidavit of interest, he submitted, takes care of the particulars of claim. A
lawyer could file particulars of claim in place of the client. It is therefore
necessary for the claimants themselves to file an affidavit of interest to
demonstrate how they acquired the property and that the process filed was
proper. Counsel further submitted that assuming without admitting to counsel
for the plaintiff/judgment creditors’ position; Order 81 can be invoked to save
the situation. Thus, the process could be treated as a mere irregularity which does
not merit same to be struck out. <o:p></o:p>In a rebuttal on a point
of law, counsel for the plaintiff/judgment creditor argued that Order 81 does
not cure a situation where the process is palpably wrong. He argued that apart from
claimant’s failure to comply with Order 48 r6(1), the order of the court has
not been complied with. <o:p></o:p>The main issue for
determination is: whether or not the claimants were right in filing the joint
affidavit of interest when the court ordered them under Order 48 rule 6(1) to
file particulars of claim? <o:p></o:p>It is my considered
opinion that a proper construction of the term particulars of claim within the
meaning of Order 48 rule 6(1) and C.I 47 as a whole is at the heart of this
legal objection.<o:p></o:p>Order 48 rule 6(1)
provides:<o:p></o:p>“Not
later than 7 days after the Court makes an order under rule 2(2) or after
service of the order on the claimants if the Court so directs, any claimant who
intends to maintain a claim shall file in the registry particulars of the claim,
notice of which shall be given to every other claimant and to the applicant.”<o:p></o:p>The Translegal Dictionary
defines ‘particulars of claim’ as “document setting out the case of the
claimant (a person who brings an action in a court) and the specific facts relied
upon.”<o:p></o:p>These are statements made
by a claimant in a legal action, setting out the facts upon which he or she
relies in support of a claim and the relief sought.<o:p></o:p>An affidavit is defined by
the Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) as a voluntary declaration of facts
written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer authorized to
administ</main>