FIRST NATIONAL SAVINGS & LOANS COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRUDENT EXPORT LIMITED [2019]DLHC6810

Date	2019-05-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO: AB/18/2012
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6810

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

MR. DENNIS OWUSU-APPIAH OFOSUAPEA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

ALHAJI FAROUK SEIDU FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC6810
																																						<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" >FIRST NATIONAL SAVINGS
&amp; LOANS COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PRUDENT EXPORT LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 6),
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: AB/18/2012 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 16TH
MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>MR. DENNIS OWUSU-APPIAH
OFOSUAPEA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/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">

ALHAJI
FAROUK SEIDU FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<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">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Introduction:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Against
the backdrop of this Court’s ruling delivered on December 17, 2018 pursuant to
the Defendant/Applicant’s application for Stay of Execution and to Set Aside
Execution of Judgment, the Plaintiff has brought the instant application for
the consideration by the Court. In considering the application for stay of
execution and to set aside, the Court relied on Order 7 Rule 5 (1) of C.I. 47
and Section 263 of the Companies Act, Act 179 to set aside the Entry of
Judgment filed and served. The Court reasoned that the service of the entry of
judgment was not in compliance with the law and the rules of Court. At
paragraph 33 of the ruling the Court held that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“In my view after obtaining the judgment,
the Plaintiff and in particular Counsel had a responsibility to ensure that the
rules of service are complied with in executing the judgment. If the service of
the Entry of Judgment which is the precursor to enforcing the judgment was not
proper, all other steps taken are null and void”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prior to the Court’s ruling of December
17, 2018 the Plaintiff/Applicant had set in motion the execution process and
had some properties of the Defendant attached by the Deputy Sheriff further to
the filing of the Entry of Judgment and a Writ of Fieri Facias issued in execution of the judgment of the Court. The
Registrar of this Court subsequently levied execution against some properties
of the Defendant. By this application the Plaintiff/Applicant is praying the
Court for an order of preservation and or detention of those properties
pursuant to Order 25 Rule 2 of C.I. 47. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In moving the application Counsel for
the Plaintiff relied on the motion paper and the 8- paragraph accompanying
affidavit and submitted that “the property which were attached pursuant to the
entry of judgment which the Court found to be wrongful should be preserved”.
According to Counsel the Court has a duty under Order 1 Rule 2 of the High
Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004, C.I. 47 to assist a party to avoid
extra expenses and cost. To that extent, Counsel submitted that “this Court has
the power to order for the detention and preservation of those properties
within the meaning of Order 25 Rule 2 of C.I. 47”. According to Mr. Ofosu-Appiah
the Plaintiff/Applicant has now served the Defendant/Judgment Debtor with the
entry of judgment so releasing the properties to the Defendant at this stage is
not the best option because in Counsel’s view the Applicant shall incur extra
costs in going back for the properties. Based on the affidavit in support of
the application and the submission Counsel prayed the Court to grant the
application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[4]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Defendant/Respondent is vehemently opposed
to the application and has filed an Affidavit in Opposition to same. In
opposing the application, Alhaji Farouk Seidu relied on the depositions in the
21 paragraph affidavit </main>