IFS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. vs. LYDIEKUFF LIMITED AND LYDIA OHENE- KENA [2019]DLHC10277

Date	2019-05-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/0288/16
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10277

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA AIKINS (MRS).

JOSEPHINE OSEI-OWUSU HOLDING BRIEF FOR SAMUEL ADU BOAHEN

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

FRANCIS PAA KWESI ABAIDOO

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10277
																																						<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" >IFS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.<span lang="EN" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>LYDIEKUFF LIMITED AND LYDIA OHENE- KENA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOSEPHINE
OSEI-OWUSU HOLDING BRIEF FOR SAMUEL ADU BOAHEN, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">FRANCIS
PAA KWESI ABAIDOO, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;MOTION
ON NOTICE FOR VARIATION OF THE ORDER FOR RESERVE PRICE DATED 22ND
AUGUST, 2017.<o:p></o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>This
application is a request by the plaintiff/judgment creditor/applicant for an
order to vary or review the reserve price fixed by this Court on 22nd
August, 2017 in respect of the defendant/judgment debtor/respondent’s property
which was attached in execution of this Court’s judgment delivered on 31st
March, 2017.<o:p></o:p>The
reason of the plaintiff for this request is that the auctioneer has not been
successful in selling the attached property despite several attempts to do so.
Attached to the plaintiff’s application are 3 exhibits. Exhibit ‘A’ is the
order of this Court dated 22nd August, 2017 in which the reserve
price for the attached property was fixed at GH₵990,000.00,
Exhibit ‘B’ series are copies of adverts that were placed in the Ghanaian Times
Newspaper and Exhibit ‘C’ is a copy of the auctioneer’s affidavit disclosing
the fact that he had not been able to sell the attached property due to the
fact that the offers he received were far below the reserve price fixed by the
Court.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/judgment debtor/respondent is vehemently opposed to this application
on the ground that the amount of GH₵500,000.00
which the plaintiff/applicant is asking the Court to fix as the new reserve
price is woefully inadequate and unconscionable and that it is an attempt by
the plaintiff/applicant to ridiculously reduce the value of the attached
property.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/respondent attached to her affidavit in opposition Exhibit ‘LOK 2’ which
is a valuation of the self-same property commissioned by the respondent’s Counsel.
The said Exhibit ‘LOK 2’ gives the attached property a forced sale value of GH₵1,225,672.00.<o:p></o:p>The
Court has considered the affidavits of both parties and also the submissions
made by both Counsel and the Court is of the opinion that it doubts if the
property can be sold at the forced sale value stated in Exhibit ‘LOK 2’
considering the fact that the property has not been sold since the 22nd
August, 2017 when the reserve price was fixed at GH₵990,000.00.<o:p></o:p>This
Court is of the further opinion that since the auctioneer was not able to sell
the attached property at the reserve price of GH₵990,000.00,
the said reserve price ought to be reviewed downwards and same is reviewed
downwards to the sum of GH₵700,000.00 because the Court
thinks the GH₵500,000.00 being requested for by the
plaintiff/judgment creditor/applicant is rather on the low side.<o:p></o:p>However
if the defe</main>