OLD PARK ENGINEERING SERV. LTD (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED (DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT/DEBTOR) LHS GHANA LIMITED (CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT) [2019]DLHC7177

OLD PARK ENGINEERING SERV. LTD (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs. CASSEL ENER... [2019]DLHC7177

Date	2019-04-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/0486/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7177

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

JEDIDIAH WILLIAMS FOR CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT

FRED ASARE DANQUAH FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7177
																																						<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" >OLD PARK
ENGINEERING SERV. LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CASSEL
ENERGY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT/DEBTOR)<o:p></o:p>LHS GHANA
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<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. RPC/0486/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 15TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>JEDIDIAH
WILLIAMS FOR CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/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">

FRED
ASARE DANQUAH FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT<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>This is an application filed by the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant
seeking an order of injunction to restrain the Deputy Sheriff from proceeding
with the execution process in respect of land pending the determination of an
interpleader appeal. I have read the Application and the various affidavits
filed by the parties. I have also considered the statement of case filed by
both Counsel in support and in opposition to the application. Regard has also
been given to Order 25 of the High Court
Civil Procedure Rules (C.I. 47). <o:p></o:p>A brief summary of the facts giving
rise to this application are that, in an interpleader action by the Applicant
herein, Judgment was given by this Court on 14th January 2019 in favor
of the Claimant in respect of certain items except immovable property situated
at Tema, which this Court found to be rightfully owned by the Judgment debtor. The
Applicant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, filed an appeal on 21st
January 2019. Pursuant to the appeal, Applicant filed a motion for stay of
execution before this Court which was refused on 11th February 2019
on the grounds that the judgment sought to be stayed by the Applicant was non
executable. The Applicant herein has therefore filed this Application in the
alternative.<o:p></o:p>The jurisdiction of the High Court to
entertain such applications is established in Order 25(2) of the Civil
Procedure Rules (CI 47). Furthermore, in this particular instance, the
challenge of the judgment being a non-executable order is addressed in MERCHANT BANK (GHANA) LTD v SIMILAR WAYS
LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 440, where it was established that a Court may stay the
enforcement of an executable decision pending the determination of an appeal on
a subsequent non-executable order. The Applicant herein is rightly entitled to
make the application for injunction despite the refusal of the earlier Stay of
Execution application. In the case of REPUBLIC
v HIGH COURT, HO: EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA [1991] 1
GLR 323, where a refusal of a stay of execution application was not a
hindrance to the grant of an application for injunction after the final
judgment of the High Court.<o:p></o:p>When considering an application for
injunction, as set out in Order 25 of CI 47 the Court is tasked first to
identify the existence of a legal or equitable right that needs to be
protected, and having identified this right, the Court is then required to
assess the balance of convenience to see whether irreparable damage, hardship
and inconvenience are likely to be caused by the grant or refusal of the
application.<o:p></o:p>The need to identify a legal or equitable
right that needs protection was established in the case of ANAMAN v OSEI TUTU [1976] 1 GLR, that an applicant needs to
convince the Court that there is the likelihood of his legal or equitable
rights being violated by the acts sought to be injuncted. In this present case,
the Applicant seeks to persuade the Court that by virtue of acts of possession
exercised on the subject matter, they have established the existence of an
interest in the land in dispute. In this instance, the Court has in its earlier
judgment found that from the evidence adduced, the land in question still
belonged to the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor Company and that Claimant at best had
a promise to sell. Claimants’ allegation of possession of the subject matter,
which they have sought to establish, by the presence of their movable
properties on the land, is an inferior right to Defendants secured title and
cannot entitle them to any ownership rights in the land as the legal title is
still vested in Cassel Ltd. Furthermore, attached to the contract which Claimant
seeks to rely on is evidence of payment in the name of Bluefone Marine
Fisheries Ltd. This evidence supports the assertion that the Claimant therefore
has made no payment in respect of the said contract. &nbsp;It is instructive to note that the building
permit attached by Claimant as LH4 is also in the joint names of Cassel-LHS-Bluefone.
<o:p></o:p>In the first place, a building permit
doesn’t confer title to the land as most assemblies require the drawings and a
site plan. In any case, Applicant asserts that they have their name on the building
permit with the Defendant/Judgment Debtor; is the Applicant saying that Cassel
is still the owner of the property for which they are also claiming ownership?
The web tightens when one contemplates the role of Blu</main>