ELVISCO FARMS vs. KENNEDY TWI & SONS LIMITED AND MR. KENNEDY TWI [2018]DLHC3724

Date	2018-03-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC/29/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3724

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

FOSTER AKWASI ASANTE FOR APPLICANT.

EUNICE ADU GYAMFI FOR BEN ACOLATSE FOR RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLHC3724
																																						<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" >ELVISCO FARMS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KENNEDY TWI
&amp; SONS LIMITED AND MR. KENNEDY TWI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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.RPC/29/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
15TH MARCH, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>FOSTER AKWASI ASANTE FOR
APPLICANT.<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">

EUNICE
ADU GYAMFI FOR BEN ACOLATSE FOR RESPONDENT.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

ANGELINA
MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
submissions of both counsel in respect of the instant application to set aside
the order of the court dated 21/12/2017 have been considered upon the
examination of the bailiff, there is a real doubt as to the entity the hearing
notice of the motion was served on. If the business is a limited liability
company, then service on the shop attendant cannot be said to be good service.
In any case, there is no document to proof that the business is also an
enterprise in which case service ought to have been effected on the proprietor
personally.<o:p></o:p>It
is to be noted that the property in issue was purchased at an auction the sale
has become absolute.<o:p></o:p>This
entitled the purchaser to apply for a writ of delivery under order 45 rule 12
(3) of C.I. 47, and not a writ of possession under order 43 rule 3 (1) of C.I.
47.<o:p></o:p>After
reading the affidavit in support of the previous application, the court
considered the provisions of order 1 rule 2 of C.I. 47 and granted leave for a
writ of delivery to issue instead of writ of possession.<o:p></o:p>In
both situations, occupants of the premises which has been auctioned were to be
notified. In the case of auction sale, after a writ of delivery has been
issued, all that is required of the occupants is to attone tenancy to the
purchaser. <o:p></o:p>That
said, the court cannot close its eyes to the present Applicant’s contention
that no notice of the motion on notice filed by the purchaser was served on the
company. But the question is, what good will the “Applicant/Occupant” achieve
in the face of the fact that the auction sale has become absolute? I leave that
to the Applicant’s judgment.<o:p></o:p>Upon
a careful consideration of all the circumstances leading to the grant of the
application complained of by the Applicant herein the court hereby sets aside
its order dated 19/02/2018 granting leave to the Applicant thereon to issue a
writ of Delivery and Ejection of occupants.<o:p></o:p>No
other consequential order will be made at this time. In the light of this
ruling, it is entirely up to counsel for the Applicant in the said motion to
put her house in order. <o:p></o:p>No
order is to cost. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(SGD.) ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS)<o:p></o:p>

JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p></main>