STANBIC BANK GHANA LTD vs. MAGNA TERRIS LTD & ANOR [2018]DLHC10109

Date	2018-08-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/359/2014
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10109

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

MS AMELIA ADJOTEYE FOR APPLICANT PRESENT

LAWYERS FOR PLAINTIFF AND OTHER CLAIMANTS ABSENT

[2018]DLHC10109
																																						<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" >STANBIC BANK GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLT/J/CR/EXEC/RESP.)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAGNA TERRIS LTD &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFT/J/DEBTOR)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (COMMERCIAL, 5) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MS AMELIA
ADJOTEYE FOR APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">LAWYERS FOR PLAINTIFF, AND OTHER CLAIMANTS ABSENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
GEORGE BUADI J.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING
ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE COURT’S INTERPLEADER RULING DATED 5 JULY 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court’s review jurisdiction is not an appellate
jurisdiction but rather, it is the power of the court, akin to its inherent jurisdiction that may be invoked in
exceptional circumstances, including where the court itself in particular have perhaps
inadvertently committed a fundamental error, an error that on its face must
have occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice to an applicant. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Plant Ltd v.
Nartey [1987-1988].<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The applicant was part of three claimants
that brought interpleader claims before this court in respect of the deputy
sheriff’s attachment of some landed properties in execution of judgment of this
court in favour of the plaintiff. The ruling of this court on the matter was
delivered on July 5, 2018. In the said ruling, the court found the mortgage interest
of plaintiff/judgment execution creditor in the subject matter land under
attachment prior in time, and also adverse, or superior to the mortgage interests
that defendant judgment debtor executed in favour of the claimants over the subject
matter land. The court dismissed the claims and found that the attachment of
the landed property by the deputy sheriff for the purpose of sale in
satisfaction of the defendant’s judgement debt to the plaintiff cannot be set
aside as being wrongful.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I recalled that just after the ruling,
lawyer for claimant applicant Ms. Amelia Adjoteye drew the court’s attention to
her supplementary written address that she filed dated 19 June 2018 pursuant to
an order of the court, wondering whether the court had access to it and did in
fact consider the submission contained therein. Quite uncertain about the
inquiry, the court asked counsel to take up the matter under any of the
appropriate judicial channels, hence this application by counsel for review of
the 5 July decision. The application was brought under Order 42 of the Court’s
Rules, notices of which I find had been served on the parties, particularly the
plaintiff judgment execution creditor, who the record suggests had not opposed
the application. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I have had the opportunity to look
into counsel’s request in the light of applicant’s notice of claim,
particularly her supplementary written submission dated 19 June 2018, which
essentially was to the effect that the applicant’s properties numbered 104B,
116B, 98B, 96B, 122B, and 30C all at Heavens Cottage, Magna Terris Estate,
Oshiokpo Dahwenya, Community 25, Tema fall within the coordinates of 1284000 to
1285000”, and that they are outside, not within, or distinct from the coordinates
of 1285000 to 1286000 that delimit and cover the portion of land that the
defendant judgment debtor mortgaged to plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I find the submission legitimate and plainly
established in the papers filed by counsel. I find as a fact that with respect
to the applicant, the issue was not solely with respect to priority of mortgage
interests, but most in particular the boundaries of the plots, which the court did
not advert its mind or overlooked in its 5 July 2018 decision. Indeed, I find established
that, were the court to have found, adverted its mind and duly considered this
plain fact of the location coordinates of the disputed plots of land, my decision
with respect to the matter in relation to the applicant would have been
different. Besides, I reiterate the fact that the application did not trigger any
response, challenge or contestation from the plaintiff judgment execution
creditor though duly served with same. <o</main>