HFC BANK GHANA LIMITED vs. DOVEWELL COMPANY LIMITED AND ERIC KWAME BOAKYE [2018]DLHC3730

Date	2018-01-15
Suit No.	NO.MISC/2/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3730

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

MARIAM JAWHARY FOR RESPONDENT.

SULLEY SAMBIAN FOR APPLICANT.

[2018]DLHC3730
																																						<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" >HFC BANK GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DOVEWELL COMPANY LIMITED
AND ERIC KWAME BOAKYE<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">

NO.MISC/2/18&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 15TH JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MARIAM JAWHARY FOR
RESPONDENT.<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">

SULLEY
SAMBIAN FOR APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

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

</div>This
ruling is in respect of an application for Judicial Sale of a mortgaged
property filed by counsel for the Applicant Bank. The background facts are that
sometime in the year 2007, the Applicant granted a loan of GHC 370,000.00 to
the 1st Respondent, acting through the 2nd Respondent, to
enable it put up a commercial property on plots numbered 1, 2 and 4 Block XV
OTA Adum, Kumasi. Following a restructuring of the loan in the year 2010, and
at a time when the debt was GHC 581,960.00, a restructured loan agreement and a
mortgage deed were executed between the parties. After a series of
negotiations, 1st Respondent paid an amount of GHC 600,000.00 to the
Applicant to cover the principal sum and accrued interest. However, pursuant to
further negotiations, the 1st Respondent was to pay an amount of GHC
100,000.00 in a single bullet payment by 31/07/2015 after which the bank was to
release the mortgaged documents of the 2nd Respondent and discharge
the Respondents accordingly. The Respondents were unable to make this bullet
payment but made a part payment. Then, on 28/07/2017, the instant application
for judicial sale was filed because, according to the applicant, the entire
amount due prior to the negotiations had become due as a result of the
non-payment of the GHC 100,000.00 in the agreed manner. As at the time of the
application, the alleged debit balance stood at GHC 927,438.65, and the
Applicant sought to recover the same.<o:p></o:p>Order 19 rule (2) (1) of the High
Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2004, C.I. 47 provides that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Applications to be made by motion<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1. (1) Every application in pending
proceedings shall be made by motion.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(2) Proceedings by which an application
is to be made to the Court or a Judge of the Court under any enactment shall be
initiated by motion and where an enactment provides that an application shall
be made by some other means, an application by motion shall be deemed to
satisfy the provision of the enactment as to the making of the application.<o:p></o:p>It
is also provided under section 18 of the Mortgages Act 1972, NRCD 96 as
follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 18.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Judicial sale<o:p></o:p>1)&nbsp; On the failure of performance of an act
secured by the mortgage, the mortgagee
may apply to the Court for an order for the judicial sale of the mortgaged
property, and on being satisfied as to the existence of grounds for the
application, the Court shall, on the conditions that it considers just and
equitable, grant an order for judicial sale of all or a part of the mortgaged
property. <o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp; In considering what conditions to attach to
an order for judicial sale the Court shall consider what opportunity the
mortgagee has afforded to the mortgagor or obligor or both of them to remedy
the failure of performance.<o:p></o:p>By
the combined effect of the foregoing provisions, an order for Judicial Sale can
be sought by an originating notice of motion, supported by an affidavit and all
relevant matters are to be disclosed in the affidavit. <o:p></o:p>On
the face of the originating notice of motion filed by the Applicant herein on
28/07/2017, the Company seeks an order for Judicial Sale from this court.
However, the body of the motion reads:<o:p></o:p>