ELECTROLAND GHANA LTD vs. PAULINA ADOMAKO AND ANOTHER [2018]DLHC3453

Date	2018-11-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 1420/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3453

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3453
																																						<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" >ELECTROLAND GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PAULINA ADOMAKO 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. GJ
1420/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;19TH
N OVEMBER, 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>Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Defendant
(hereinafter called obtained called Execution Creditor/Defendant for the
purposes of this interpleader suit) obtained judgment against Defendant/Judgment
Debtor (hereinafter called the Judgment Debtor) on the 20th of
December, 2017 for the recovery of an amount of <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;">Ghc1,004,747.00 as monies owed by the Judgment
Debtor for the supply of products to Judgment Debtor together with interest and
cost. In its quest to execute the judgment and recover the monies, property H/No
04800375-10, NNK 04 Jamorky, Opposite Zion Prayer Centre, Ashaley Botwe Accra
was attached. It is the attachment of this property that has precipitated the
filing of notice of claim by Kingley Adomako, the Claimant/Plaintiff
(hereinafter called the Claimant/Plaintiff).<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; 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;">When <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;">called
upon by the court to file an affidavit of interest, the Plaintiff filed one and
deposed among others, that the property attached is his bona fide property, in
his sole name even though he admit that the Judgment Debtor is his wife. That
he acquired the property long before the Judgment Debtor registered her
business in July, 2009 under the business name and style Bigma Enterprise and
that she is not part of his wife’s business and neither was he part of the suit
that resulted in the judgment against the Judgment Debtor and hence claim that
his house cannot be used to defray the debt simply because he is the husband of
the Judgment Debtor.<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; 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;">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>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 took viva voce evidence from the Claimant/Plaintiff and ordered the
lawyers to file written submissions and address the court in respect of the
following questions:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Whether or not the Judgment
 Debtor has any interest in the property attached as a wife of the husband.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-</main>