SIC LIFE SAVINGS & LOANS (PLAINTIFF) vs. TRANSY TRANSPORT (DEFENDANT) [2018]DLHC7214

Date	2018-06-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. MISC/0156/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7214

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

KOFI BEKOE FOR THE APPLICANT

B.T. AGBLEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC7214
																																						<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" >SIC LIFE
SAVINGS &amp; LOANS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TRANSY
TRANSPORT<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 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. MISC/0156/17&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; DATE: 19TH
JUNE, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>KOFI
BEKOE FOR THE 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">

B.T.
AGBLEY FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>In this application the Applicant prays
this Court for reserve price and for the fixing of a forced sale value. The
Respondent is opposed to the application on the grounds that the value of the
property has been devalued.<o:p></o:p>Respondent argues that in 2016 a
valuation was done in respect of the property at the instance of the Applicant.
The Court appointed another valuer to value the property so as to give a third
opinion. I have examined the 3 valuation reports which were filed by the
parties herein and the Court appointed valuer. I have also considered the case
put forward by the parties in their respective affidavits.<o:p></o:p>It is noted that the transaction which
gave rise to the debt took place in 2016. At the inception of the transaction
the Applicant herein requested for a valuation of the property the subject
matter of the present application.&nbsp; It
was based on this valuation that the Applicant accepted the property in
question as collateral property or security for the facility granted.<o:p></o:p>It is my view that, having accepted the
value of the property as stated in Exhibit ID2 attached to the Respondents
supplementary affidavit, it would not be fair for the Applicant to purport to
produce another valuation report which seeks to devalue the property whose
value they had previously relied on to grant the facility. The Applicant has
not shown any tangible reason for the revaluation of the property. No evidence
of depreciation or damage to the property has been put before this Court to
warrant the drastic reduction in the value of the collateral provided by the
Respondents.<o:p></o:p>It is therefore my considered opinion
that, the Applicant is bound by the value of the property which they accepted
as the collateral and based upon which the facility was granted. It would be
fair conscionable and just for the Court to accept the value as stated in the
valuation report Exhibit ID2 which the parties agreed to at the inception of
the transaction before the grant of the facility to the Respondents.<o:p></o:p>For the foregoing reasons, I grant the
application for reserve price and hereby fix the forced sale value of the
property No. 132, Baatsona Basket, Spintex Road, Accra at GH¢1,879,351.00.<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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>