PRUDENTIAL BANK LIMITED vs . GYAMFUA ABABIO INVESTMENTS LIMITED & OTHERS [2019]DLHC6850

Date	2019-01-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/22/2016
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6850

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J

ADINA AVRIL AKUOKO (MS) FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/APPLICANT

MUJEEB RAHMAN AHMED FOR DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/ RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC6850
																																						<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" >PRUDENTIAL BANK LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs&nbsp; .<o:p></o:p>GYAMFUA ABABIO INVESTMENTS LIMITED &amp; OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT NO. BFS/22/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>ADINA
AVRIL AKUOKO (MS) FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/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">

MUJEEB RAHMAN AHMED FOR
DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/ RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>DR.
RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE, 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>Before
me is an application for an order for reserved price for the auction of the 1st
and 3rd defendants’/Judgment Debtors’/Respondents’ immovable
property in fulfilment of a judgment debt. This application raises procedural
issues which border on execution of judgments. The background to the application
is narrated below:<o:p></o:p>On
3rd November, 2016 parties to the suit filed terms of settlement and
on 8th November, 2016 the same was adopted by the court as consent
judgment. Upon default of the terms of settlement by the Defendants/Judgment
Debtors (hereinafter called the Respondents), the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
(hereinafter called the Applicant) filed an Entry of Judgment on 9th
June, 2017 and commenced the execution process by issuing a Writ of fierifacias (fifa) to attach two immovable properties which were used as
security for the various facilities advanced to the Respondents. Thereafter,
the two immovable properties described as an industrial property and a Hotel
were both valued and valuation reports dated December 2017 and November, 2017
respectively were provided by the valuer. In December, 2017, the court granted
the applicant herein an order for reserved price in respect of the Industrial
Property which is situate at Plot 5B Block XVIII, Adum, Kumasi. However,
according to the applicant all attempts to auction the Industrial Property have
proved futile. This application is, therefore, focused on the Hotel i.e. Royale
Lamerta Hotel situate at Plot 2, Block S, West Nhyieso Extension, Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of the application are contained in the affidavit in support filed on
29th September, 2018. The applicant is praying the court to fix the
reserved price of the property, Royale Lamerta Hotel situate at Plot 2, Block
S, West Nhyieso Extension, Kumasi at GHC10,424,200.00.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondents are opposed to the application and have demonstrated the grounds in
an affidavit in opposition filed on 30th October, 2018.<o:p></o:p>In
his written submission, counsel for the respondent cited a plethora of legal
authorities and invited the court to dismiss the application since the whole
execution process is flawed. Counsel’s submissions are summed up as follows:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Counsel contended that the Entry of
Judgment filed by the applicant is never the judgment that was pronounced by
the court and to that extent the same is null and void and incapable of
invoking an execution process including the instant application.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Counsel also submitted that granted the
entry of judgment was valid, the rules of practice and procedure requires the
applicant to have sought leave of the court to go into execution. He
particularly cited Order 44 rule 1 and 3(1)(d) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) and invited the court to declare the writ of fifa issued by the applicant null and
void, as it was issued without leave of the court.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Counsel also questioned the form of the
writ of fifa. He charged that there
is a defect on the face of the writ of fifa,
as the applicant failed to endorse on the face of the writ the fact that the
movable properties are incapable or are not enough to make good the judgment
debt as required by law.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;