AGAVE RURAL BANK vs. LEMDOR LTD. AND PROSPER VAN-AS ADAMALEY [2018]DLHC10711

Date	2018-12-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ/1490/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10711

HIS LORDSHIP JUDTICE EMMANUEL KWASI MENSAH

[2018]DLHC10711
																																						<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" >AGAVE RURAL BANK<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LEMDOR LTD. AND PROSPER VAN-AS
ADAMALEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO: GJ/1490/17 &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:
18TH DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUDTICE EMMANUEL
KWASI MENSAH<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;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<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On the 29th
October, 2018, Learned Counsel for the Defendants Judgment Debtors Applicants
moved this Court for an order setting aside the Court’s order of 28th
May, 2018. A thirteen paragraphed affidavit filed on the 18th
September, 2018, support the application. In open Court, on the above mentioned
date, the Applicants per Counsel argued that on the 21st March,
2017, the Respondents herein through its past Counsel moved an application for
a reserve price in respect of Applicant’s landed property. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That the
application was opposed by Counsel on the other side on the basis that there
was a wide variation between forced sale values.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That the
Court differently constituted and faced with arguments from both Counsel
ordered the two expert valuers to come to Court and defend their valuation
reports on the 8th May, 2017, at 10:00am prompt. Applicants per
counsel annexed and marked here a copy of the Court’s proceedings as Exhibit
LL1 for that day and the order of the Court. That the Applicants before the
Court and their Counsel were in Court on the said date but the Respondents and
their Lawyers were absent from Court. That for their absence the matter was
therefore adjourned to the 5th June, 2017, and that they have annexed
as Exhibit LL2 a copy of the Court’s proceedings for the day in question. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That the
Applicant was in Court on the 5th and 20th June, 2017 and
25th July, 2017 but the Respondents and their counsel failed to
appear in Court. Further that on the resumption from the Legal vacation,
Counsel for the Respondents herein brought another Application for a Reserve
price whilst the order of the Court pertaining to parties producing experts to
justify their valuation Report subsisted and that there was no application to
the Court to set aside or vary the orders of the Honourable Court. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;That on the
28th May, 2018, this Court granted the Respondents’ application for
reserved price as being realistic and although it was opposed by former Counsel
for the Applicants. That the said ruling is attached here as Exhibit LL3. That
the Court proceeded to purge the reserved price at GH₵509,238.00 and ordered the property to be sold at a
public Auction.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It was also
argued by Counsel for the Applicants that there is only one High Court so that
the orders given by a previous Judge which orders if not varied, set aside or
enforced has to be adhered to by the new Court, and that over riding those
order will amount to a new Judge sitting as an Appeal Court Judge. <o:p></o:p>Commenting on
the affidavit in opposition, it is the case of the Applicant per Counsel that
it is not true that the Lawyers agreed that the application before Justice Naa
Azu be repeated before this Court; and that they deny this claim by the
supplementary affidavit of the former lawyer Peter Kwaku Nti who said there was
no such agreement. That for Justice to be served, the Ruling of the Court dated
28th May, 2018, be set aside for the two experts to appear and
justify their valuation reports or in the Alternative, an independent valuer be
appointed to value the property.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the 12th
November, 2018, Counsel for the Respondents, Agave Rural Bank was on his feet
to respond to the submissions made by Counsel for and on behalf of the
Applicants on the 19th October, 2018. Prior to this date, Counsel
for the Respondent had on the 24th August 2018, filed a 16
paragraphed affidavit in opposition. That the Respondent’s first reason for
opposing the instant application is that the Applicant herein has failed to
demonstrate that the Ruling of the Court delivered on the 28th May,
</main>