ATORBU MAHAMADU CLETUS & 51 ORS. (PLAINTIFF) vs. MENZGOLD GHANA LIMITED (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7155

ATORBU MAHAMADU CLETUS & 51 ORS. (PLAINTIFF) vs. MENZGOLD GHANA LIMITED (DEFENDA... [2019]DLHC7155

Date	2019-05-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0227/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7155

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

NKRABEA EFFAH-DARTEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS

YVONNE AKUFFO-ADDO FOR KWAME AKUFFO BOAFO FOR DEFENDANT

NANA AKUA ADUBEA SAKYI FOR RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7155
																																						<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" >ATORBU
MAHAMADU CLETUS &amp; 51 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MENZGOLD
GHANA LIMITED<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. CM/RPC/0227/19&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 22ND
MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>NKRABEA
EFFAH-DARTEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YVONNE
AKUFFO-ADDO FOR KWAME AKUFFO BOAFO FOR DEFENDANT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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
AKUA ADUBEA SAKYI FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<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>I have read the application and the
supporting affidavits. I have also given consideration to the affidavits filed
by the Respondent herein. I have also given regard to the oral submissions made
by Counsel for the parties.&nbsp; Thoughtful
consideration has been given to the principles governing the grant or refusal
of applications of this nature.<o:p></o:p>I must say that, it appears EOCO does
not appreciate and comprehend the essence of preservation orders and freezing
orders made by a Court pending investigations.&nbsp;
In my view the freezing order made by the Court cannot be substituted
for a preservation order.<o:p></o:p>The freezing order, to me cannot
protect the interest of the Plaintiff/Applicant in the pending proceedings
before this Court.&nbsp; It is of interest to
note that in the event the accounts and properties are unfrozen, Menzgold may
decide to sell, dispose of and or transfer their interest in any of the
properties which is the subject matter of the freezing orders.&nbsp; In the present application, however, the
Plaintiff/Applicants are praying for an order directed at EOCO to preserve
properties worth GH¢3,000,000.00 belonging to the Defendant in the substantive
suit pending before the Court until the final determination of the said suit.<o:p></o:p>It is observed that in considering application
of this nature, the Court should satisfy itself that the Applicant has a prima
facie interest in the property the subject-matter of dispute.&nbsp; Again, the Court must ascertain whether there
is any need to protect the subject-matter of dispute.<o:p></o:p>It is my view that the applicant having
sued Menzgold, the Defendant in the substantive suit, the Court has had the
benefit of reading the pleading of both Menzgold and the Plaintiffs
herein.&nbsp; I must say that the Defendant
Company in the substantive suit, i.e. Menzgold has not denied the pleadings of
the Plaintiffs/Applicant. It is my view therefore that from the pleadings
before the Court in respect of the substantive suit and from which this present
application has been filed, I find that the Plaintiffs/Applicants have
demonstrated that they have a prima facie interest in the properties which are
currently frozen.<o:p></o:p>I have further given consideration to
the need to protect the subject-matter of dispute.&nbsp; It is my view that with the spate of claims
against the Defendant Company Menzgold and the fact that should the properties
be unfrozen there is the likelihood of Menzgold transferring, selling,
disposing of or dealing with the said properties in a manner that may be
detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiffs herein, there would be the need
for the preservation of properties of Menzgold which are currently in the
possession and under the control of EOCO.&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>In the circumstance, I hereby grant the
application.&nbsp; Accordingly, it is hereby
ordered that EOCO preserve cash and properties worth GH¢3,000,000.00 belonging
to Menzgold which are under EOCO’s control and possession by reason of the
freezing orders of the Court until the final determination of the substantive
suit.<o:p></o:p>It is further ordered that in
preserving the properties of Menzgold, EOCO should keep such properties in a
manner that may not jeopardize their value. &nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

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