GLOBAL INVESTMENT BANKERS LTD AND OTHERS vs. BROOKS ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS AND JULIANA ASABEA KUJAR [2018]DLHC3449

GLOBAL INVESTMENT BANKERS LTD AND OTHERS vs. BROOKS ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTH... [2018]DLHC3449

Date	2018-11-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO CM/RPC/0631/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3449

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3449
																																						<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" >GLOBAL INVESTMENT BANKERS LTD AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BROOKS ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
AND JULIANA ASABEA KUJAR<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION 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
CM/RPC/0631/16&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;19TH
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors
(hereinafter called the Execution Creditors/Defendants) proceeded in execution
of a consent judgment for the recovery of an amount of Gh¢3,986,143.99 by
attaching property H/No 141 Gye Nyame St. (Atomic Down) North Dome, Accra. Without
any success with motions upon motions in this court and the Court of Appeal to
stay the execution of the judgment by the 3rd Judgment Debtor, the Claimant
(hereinafter called the Claimant/Plaintiff), Juliana Asabea Kujar has filed a
notice of claim that she is the wife of the 3rd Judgment Debtor and
has an interest in the attached property at North Dome.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court in exercise of its
powers to control the mode of its proceedings and guided by the rules of court
ordered the Claimant to file its affidavit of interest. In the affidavit of
interest filed on the 15th of August, 2018 she noted that she is the
wife of the 3rd Judgment Debtor having been married to him since 30th
of March, 2002. And that the property attached in satisfaction of the judgment
debt is a jointly acquired property having been acquired during the subsistence
of the marriage. And even though 3rd Judgment Debtor’s name appear
on the title documents but has always held the property in trust for himself
and the Claimant/Plaintiff. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Execution Creditors in an
affidavit disputed the claims of the Claimant/Plaintiff that she has an
interest in the property attached and that her interest may only be triggered
if the action had to do with a divorce proceedings. <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">When the matter came before the court for a determination in
accordance with Order 44 Rule 13 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) C.
I. 47,which states as follows:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">13. (1) Where on the hearing of proceedings pursuant to an order made
under rule 12(4) all the persons by whom adverse claims to the property in
dispute, in this rule referred to as "the claimants" appear, the
Court may <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">(a) summarily determine
the question in issue between the claimants and execution creditor and make an
order accordingly on such terms as may be just; or <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">(b) order that any issue
between the claimants and the execution creditor be stated and tried and may
direct which of them is to be plaintiff and which defendant”. <o:p></o:p>The court accordingly made the
Claimant the Plaintiff and the Execution Creditor the Defendant, for the
purposes of this trial. Judging from the nature of the affidavit of interest deposed
to by the Claimant/Plaintiff the court in exercise of its functions for the
determination of the dispute in a summary manner ordered the lawyers to file
written submissions and address the court in respect of the following
questions: whether the subject matter attached property is separately owned by
3rd Judgment Debtor or jointly owned by the Claimant/Plaintiff and
the 3rd Judgment Debtor and whether being a spouse entitle the Claimant/Plaintiff
to one half share of the property in the name of the husband. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the affidavit evidence I
find as a fact that the Claimant/Plaintiff is the wife of the 3rd Judgment
Debtor. But as to whether by being a wife entitles her from stopping the
attachment of the property depends on the analysis infra. First there is no
evidence of when this attached property was acquired. No copy of the title
document or the lease/indenture was exhibited. Was it deliberate such that its
exhibition would have exposed the Claimant/Plaintiff that the property was
acquired by the 3rd Judgment Debtor long before his marriage to the
Claimant/Pl</main>