MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU vs. THE ATTORNEY, WATER VILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD & 2 OTHERS AND ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME [2017]DLSC2673

MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU vs. THE ATTORNEY, WATER VILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD & 2 OTHERS... [2017]DLSC2673

Date	2017-10-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/03/2018
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC2673

BENIN JSC SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE

OSAFO BUABENG FOR THE APPLICANT

GODFRED YEBOAH ODAME DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2017]DLSC2673
																																						<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" >MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY, WATER
VILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD &amp; 2 OTHERS AND ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/03/2018&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:
20TH OCTOBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OSAFO
BUABENG FOR THE APPLICANT, <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">

GODFRED
YEBOAH ODAME DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

BENIN JSC SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The 3rd
defendant/Judgment-debtor/respondent/applicant, called the applicant complains
that the 1st defendant/Judgment-creditor/applicant/respondent,
called the respondent, is taking wrongful steps in seeking to enforce a
Judgment of this court. The respondent applied to go into execution through the
process known as fieri facias, fi.fa for short. An attempt was made to evaluate
the landed properties of the applicant, a necessary step in the execution
process. Believing that the evaluation was embarked upon pursuant to an order
of this court dated 24th July, 2017, and believing that it was done
in violation of the said order of this court, the applicant has brought this
application to challenge the execution process in question.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The respondent filed an affidavit in opposition
challenging the factual basis of the application, inter alia. The respondent
deposed to the fact that the execution process commenced with a writ of fi.fa
issued in January 2015 and repeated in January 2016. Consequently, the
execution is a continuing one. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The depositions in the affidavit in opposition
offered the applicant ammunition with which to launch an attack against the
entire execution process, thereby abandoning his original grounds in support of
the application. Counsel for the applicant made some interesting points which
are worth considering, especially having regard to the dearth of authority in
this area of practice in this country and even in other common law
jurisdictions. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I shall consider the various points that Counsel
for the applicant raised one after the other, and the responses thereto. To
begin with, Counsel made reference to Order 44 rule 9 sub-rules 1 and 2, and
said the writ of fi.fa issued in January 2015 was renewed in January 2016
without an order of the court, and was thus void, thereby rendering all the
ensuing execution processes null and void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his response, the Honourable Deputy
Attorney-General said the condition precedent for the renewal of a writ of
fi.fa had not arisen, at the time the second one, exhibit AG 3 was issued. This
is so because the first one, viz Exhibit AG 2 had not expired before the second
one was issued. Consequently, all the execution processes following the
issuance of Exhibit AG 3 were valid. And once the writ of fi.fa has been executed
by attachment, there was no need for a renewal, on the strength of the
authority of ACKAH v GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (2013-2014) 2 SCGLR 1157.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The relevant provisions in the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) are the following:<o:p></o:p>44(9)(1) For the purpose of execution, a writ of
execution shall be valid in the first instance for twelve months beginning with
the date of its issue. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>44(9)(2) Where a writ has not been wholly executed
the court may by order extend the validity of the writ from time to time for a
period of twelve months at any one time beginning with the day on which the
order is made if an application for extension is made to the court before the
day on which the writ would otherwise expire.<o:p></o:p>