MERCHANT BANK vs. JOSEPH NTI MENSAH [2017]DLHC4158

Date	2017-04-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC 11/2010
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4158

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE -HIGH COURT JUDGE

OSEI KOFI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2017]DLHC4158
																																						<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" >MERCHANT
BANK<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOSEPH NTI MENSAH
<o:p></o:p>[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">

<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
position:relative;top:.5pt;mso-text-raise:-.5pt;letter-spacing:.05pt;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">SUIT&nbsp;NO.
MISC 11/2010&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 7TH APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <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;
line-height:115%;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;
line-height:115%;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
is an application filed by the Defendant/ Applicant on 14/06/2017 for an order
setting aside the sale of the Defendant/ Applicant’s property number Plot 17
Block ‘J’ Atonsu, Kumasi.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
25/10/2016 when the application came up for hearing, counsel for the respondent
raised a preliminary legal objection in relation to the property of the
application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
basis of the objection was that the Defendant’s property was auctioned as far
back as 2/12/2013 and certificate of purchase has been issued. Thus, third
party rights have accrued. He submitted that the application is incompetent as
the Respondent had 21 days to mount a challenge if they had any issue with the
regularity of the sale. In sum, Counsel for Plaintiff? Respondent contended
that the sale has become absolute and as such the same cannot be set aside. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for Defendant/Applicant vehemently opposed the preliminary legal objection. He
submitted that the property was sold under a judicial sale and the main ground
for applying to set aside the sale was to the effect that no auction notices
were served prior to the sale making the order for the sale void. Referring to
holding 4 of the celebrated case of Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 339, Counsel
contended that where an order of judgment is void there is no time limit with
which an affected party may apply to have the said order set aside.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
11/11/2016 the court deferring the ruling of the preliminary legal objection
and adjourned the hearing of the substantive motion 28/11/2016. The court
indicated that a ruling on the whole motion would be given after hearing same.
The respondent as well as her counsel were absent on the said 11/11/2016. The
court therefore ordered hearing notice together with the court notice to be
served on the plaintiff/ respondent or his lawyer.<o:p></o:p>After
successive adjournments due to the absence of the respondent in court, the
substantive motion was finally moved by Counsel for the Applicant on
09/03/2017. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent and his Counsel were absent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the applicant’s submissions in response to the preliminary legal objection.
He cited sect</main>