SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE BUILDERS (PLAINTIFF) vs. TULLOW GH. LTD (DEFENDANT) [2018]DLHC7215

Date	2018-06-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BDC/8/13
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7215

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

NICOLE MARIE POKU FOR THADDEUS SORY FOR PLAINTIFF/J/CR/APP

NANA KWASI BOAKYE FOR MENKA-PREMO FOR DEFENDANT/J/DR/RESP.

[2018]DLHC7215
																																						<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" >SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE
BUILDERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TULLOW GH. LTD<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. BDC/8/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 11TH JUNE,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>NICOLE MARIE POKU FOR
THADDEUS SORY FOR PLAINTIFF/J/CR/APP<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">

NANA
KWASI BOAKYE FOR MENKA-PREMO FOR DEFENDANT/J/DR/RESP.<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;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>In this application the
Plaintiff/Judgment/Creditor/Applicant (hereafter called the Plaintiff) prays
this court for an order for leave to amend the Plaintiff’s Entry of Judgment
filed on 23rd December, 2016.<o:p></o:p>The facts of this case is very
simple.&nbsp; The Plaintiff herein obtained
judgment in this court against the Defendant herein on the 14th
December, 2016.&nbsp; The Plaintiff then filed
an entry of judgment on the 23rd December, 2016.&nbsp; The Defendant not satisfied with the judgment
of the court lodged an appeal against the decision of the court.&nbsp; The appeal was heard and dismissed by the
Court of Appeal on the 26th April, 2018.&nbsp; After the decision of the Court of Appeal,
affirming the decision of this Court, the Plaintiff herein has filed the
present application asking for leave to amend the entry of judgment which was
filed on the 23rd December, 2016 to include post-judgment interest.<o:p></o:p>The contention of the Plaintiff is that
there has been substantial lapse of time due to the pendency of the
appeal.&nbsp; As a result, the Plaintiff
contends further that, the original entry of judgment which was filed and
served on the Defendant does not reflect properly the sum to which the
Plaintiff is entitled under the judgment.&nbsp;
It is the case of the Plaintiff that the lapse of time since the
judgment was entered has resulted in post-judgment interest having accrued on
the judgment debt which Plaintiff may properly claim only upon amending the
earlier entry of judgment filed on the 23rd December, 2016.&nbsp; It is for this reason that the Plaintiff has
filed the present application asking for leave to amend the entry of judgment.<o:p></o:p>In response to the case of the
Plaintiff, the Defendant contended that the judgment of this Court which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeal still remains the judgment of the High Court
and that no change has been occasioned with regards to the reliefs granted by
this Court safe the cost awarded by the Court of Appeal.&nbsp; The Defendant further contended that the
Entry of Judgment need not be amended to reflect the post-judgment interest
when same has not been awarded by the judgment.&nbsp;
In the view of the Defendant, the execution process which will be
triggered by the Plaintiff would have to show the post-judgment interest and
all other sums accrued since the delivery of the judgment by this Court on the
14th December, 2016.&nbsp; It is
further the case of the Defendant that nowhere in the rules of this Court is it
provided that an Entry of Judgment ought to be amended to reflect interest
accrued.&nbsp; Defendant however concedes that
if the judgment or order is for the payment of money, the writ of execution
ought to state the amount originally due and the amount due under it as at the
date of the application.&nbsp; It is the view
of the Defendant that the judgment of this Court did not include interest and
therefore an amendment of the Entry of Judgment to include interest would not
reflect the terms of the judgment but such interest is by the operation of law.
<o:p></o:p>The formal recording of the decision of
a court in respect of a case which has been determined by the court in the
judgment book is what is referred to as the entry of judgment. Entering
judgment is a significant action because it establishes a permanent evidence of
the delivery by the court of the judgment.<o:p></o:p>Post-judgment interest did not exist at
Common-Law and is solely a matter of legislative grace. The purpose of
post-judgment interest as provided for in our law (Courts Award of Interest and
Post-Judgment Interest) Rules, 2005 (C.I.52), to me, is to compensate the
judgment creditor for not having use of the money awarded in the judgment until
paid by the judgment debtor.&nbsp; The rate of
interest is set by the statute and may be changed from time to time if the
legislature finds it necessary to change to keep in line with current economic
conditions.<o:p></o:p>There is no dispute that the
post-judgment interest provided for in Rule 3 of the Courts (Award of Interest
and Post-Judgment Interest) Rules, shall be collectible as part of each
judgment whether or not the judgment specifically reflects the entitlement to
such interest.<o:p></o:p>The question to be resolved is as to
whether it is necessary for a judgment creditor to amend an entry of judgment
previously filed so as to be able to levy execution on it?<o:p></o:p>In the instant application, the
Defendant do not deny the fact that the Plaintiff is entitled to Post-Judgmen</main>