EVADOX LTD vs. SAHEL SAHARA BANK LTD AND SAHEL SAHARA BANK vs. EVADOX LTD AND ANOTHER [2018]DLHC3452

EVADOX LTD vs. SAHEL SAHARA BANK LTD AND SAHEL SAHARA BANK vs. EVADOX LTD AND AN... [2018]DLHC3452

Date	2018-11-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BDC/0237/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3452

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3452
																																						<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" >EVADOX LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAHEL SAHARA BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>SAHEL SAHARA BANK<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EVADOX LTD AND ANOTHER<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/BDC/0237/18&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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Defendant/Counter
Claimant/Applicant has brought this application for orders in nature of
interlocutory injunction to restrain the Respondents/Defendants to the counter claim
and their agents, assigns, and persons claiming through them from transferring,
leasing, selling, encumbering, disposing or otherwise dealing with nine
properties that were used by the 1st Respondent to secure loans
granted by the Applicant as well the use of some of some of the properties by 1st
Respondent as securities for Applicant’s issuance of Bank guarantee to enable 1st
Respondent access a Fifteen Million Cedis from COCOBOD as seed fund.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To
Applicant due to the nature of some of the documents evidencing ownership which
were incomplete the 1st Respondent undertook to regularize the land
documents after the disbursement of the credit facilities to enable Applicant
proceed to perfect the mortgages. Applicant contend that 1st
Respondent has defaulted in the repayment of the loans and same has been
restructured several times. That Respondents are indebted to Applicant an
amount in excess of Gh¢5,629,158.11 as well as being faced with a contingency
liability of Gh¢1,654,283.29 which represent the amount that 1st
Respondent owe COCOBOD and which Applicant issued a guarantee. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To
Applicant notwithstanding the mortgage of the nine properties, 1st
Respondent has attempted and is attempting to sell the mortgaged properties in
contravention of the mortgaged agreements and even had to caution the Lands
Commission about any such conduct on the part of the Respondents and hence its
application for order from the court to restrain the Respondents.<o:p></o:p>Respondents
have resisted the application through an affidavit in opposition filed by Ms
Sika Aggrey. They claim that after the disbursement of the loans by Applicant
to the 1st Respondent matters became difficult which affected the
repayments which matters are known to the Applicant. She then states in
paragraph 7 of the affidavit in opposition as follows: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“That I verily believe
that the Respondents have an unfettered right in law (irrespective of having
mortgaged them) to put up their properties for sale subject to their statutory
right of redemption and upon receiving offers from prospective buyers obtain
the consent of Applicant to the sale of the said properties where the sale
proceeds will be made directly to the Applicant against a discharge of the
mortgages on the properties”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She
then claim that with the mortgaged properties registered no sale to a third
party can prejudice the interest of the Applicant and Respondents are shocked
to be accused by Applicant of engaging in a criminal conduct. That due notice
has been given to the Applicant of the intention of the Respondents to dispose
of some of the properties to liquidate the debt with Applicant appointing a
reputable Estate Agency to value and market the properties. Following these a
prospective buyer was secured who made an offer but same was rejected by the Applicant
and therefore was surprise to receive this application which it described as
fanciful and calls for the refusal of the application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order
25 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 states as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The court may grant an injunction
by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to&nbsp; be just or convenient to do so, and the order
may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as the
court considers just”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
an application for interlocutory injunction it is the duty of the Applicant to
demonstrate a number of factors, among which are, that there is a right that
ought to be protected at law or in equity, that greater and irreparable
hardship will be occasioned by the refusal of the application, that the
application is not frivolous or vexatious and that compensation may not be
adequate remedy. See the following cases:</main>