BALFOUR ASSOCIATES INC. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. FOS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED & ANO. (DEFENDANTS) [2017]DLHC7316

BALFOUR ASSOCIATES INC. (PLAINTIFFS) vs. FOS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED & ANO. (D... [2017]DLHC7316

Date	2017-04-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: RPC/09/2012
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC7316

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MR. J.A. LARKAI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/APPLICANT PRESENT

MR. REYNOLDS TWUMASI FOR THE RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC7316
																																						<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" >BALFOUR ASSOCIATES INC.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FOS ALUMINIUM COMPANY
LIMITED &amp; ANO.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[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.: RPC/09/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 13TH
APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

MR. J.A. LARKAI FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT
CREDITOR/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

MR. REYNOLDS TWUMASI FOR THE RESPONDENT
PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, J.<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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 instant application seeks an order of
the court to commit the respondent herein for contempt of court. The
application is opposed by the respondent.<o:p></o:p>According to the applicant, the suit
between the parties was settled and terms of settlement filed. In execution of
the judgment the factory premises of the defendants was attached, per a writ of
fieri facias,&nbsp; and three unsuccessful
attempts made to sell the property and that the auctioneer is still taking
steps to sell the property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However as stated in paragraph 10 and 11 of
the supporting affidavit:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the 2nd Defendant who is
1st Defendant’s Managing Director has in wilful defiance of the
Attachment of the 1st Defendant’s property which consists of the
factory building and machinery for the production of roofing sheets re-opened
the factory and commenced work.<o:p></o:p>11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the conduct of the 2nd
Defendant is meant to openly despise the authority of the court and thereby
bring the authority of the court into disrespect and disrepute.<o:p></o:p>As a result, the
applicant says that the action of the 2nd respondent constitute
contempt of the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The purpose of the issuance of a writ of
fieri facias is amply stated in order 45 rules 1(2) and rule 6 which provides
that:<o:p></o:p>1(2)&nbsp;where a writ of fieri facias is
issued it shall be executed by the seizure and sale of the debtor’s property
sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment debt together with
post-judgment interest at the appropriate rate until payment and the costs of
the execution.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unauthorized alienation
during attachment void<o:p></o:p>After an attachment has been made by actual
seizure, or by written order duly delivered, served or posted in accordance
with rule 5, any alienation without leave of the Court of the property
attached, whether by sale, gift or otherwise, and any payment of the debt,
dividends, or shares to the judgment debtor during the continuance of the
attachment, shall be null and void, and the person making the alienation or
payment shall be liable to committal for contempt of Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A writ of fieri facias enables the seizure
of the property of a judgment debtor and also permits, with the leave of the
court, the sale of such property by the Sherriff, to off-set the debt owed by
the judgment debtor.<o:p></o:p>Thus, after the issuance of a writ of fieri
facias, it becomes unlawful for the judgment debtor to alienate the property in
any manner whether by sale or gift or any other disposition of the attached
property which prejudices the interest of the judgment creditor. And rule 6 of
Order 45 makes it contemptible if the judgment debtor takes any steps to
alienate the attached property.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The allegation by the applicant is that the
respondent has opened the factory premises and is carrying on with its normal
business. It has not been alleged that the respondent has taken steps or is
taking steps to alienate the property attached. The court does not think that
the opening of the factory premises for the normal operation of the business of
the respondent in any way damnify the interest of the judgment debtor. Further,
the opening of the factory premises for normal business activities does not in
itself stops or prevents the auctioneer from selling the attached property. The
attachment of the property does not seal the property in such a way that the
respondent is prohibited from opening the property for normal business
operations.<o:p></o:p><o</main>