OLD PARK ENGINEERING SERVICE LIMITED (PLAINTIFF/J/CR) vs. CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED (DEFENDANT/J/DR) AND LHS GHANA LIMITED (CLAIMANT) [2019]DLHC7266

OLD PARK ENGINEERING SERVICE LIMITED (PLAINTIFF/J/CR) vs. CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED... [2019]DLHC7266

Date	2019-01-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0486/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7266

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

FRED ASARE-DANQUAH FOR JUDGMENT/CREDITOR

JEDIDIAH WILLIAMS FOR CLAIMANT

[2019]DLHC7266
																																						<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
SERVICE LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/J/CR)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/J/DR)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>LHS GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT)<o:p></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/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;DATE: 14TH
JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>FRED ASARE-DANQUAH FOR
JUDGMENT/CREDITOR<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">

JEDIDIAH
WILLIAMS FOR CLAIMANT<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The core issue
which I have to adjudicate on in this interpleader action is as to whether or
not the attached movable and immovable properties situate at Tema belong to the
Defendant/Judgment/Debtor for which the Execution-Creditor can lawfully attach
in satisfaction of the judgment debt of Cassel Energy Limited.<o:p></o:p>The case of the
Claimant is that A-Z Petroleum Company and Tema Development Corporation entered
into a lease agreement whereby TDC leased a parcel of land for a term of 60years
to A-Z Company Limited.&nbsp; Claimant
contends further that on the 31st May, 2013, A-Z Petroleum Company
assigned its unexpired interest in the land to the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor,
Cassel Energy Limited.&nbsp; According to the
Claimant, Cassel Energy Limited, the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor, also on the 19th
June, 2015, transferred its interest in the land to the Claimant for a period
of 25 years. <o:p></o:p>It is further
the case of the Claimant that the movable properties listed in paragraph 10 of
their affidavit of interest do not belong to Cassel Energy Limited but they are
all the bona fide properties of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p>On its part, the
Execution-Creditor by its affidavit evidence avers that the documents covering
the transfer of interest in the land from Cassel Energy Limited
(Defendant/Judgment/Debtor) to the Claimant were prepared after judgment had
been entered against the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor and the said land had been
attached.&nbsp; It is the contention of the
Execution-Creditor that the transaction between Defendant/Judgment/Debtor and
the Claimant was back-dated to overreach the Court and the
Execution-Creditor.&nbsp; The
Execution-Creditor therefore contends that the documents covering the transfer
of the interest of Defendant/Judgment/Debtor to the Claimant are defective and
does not pass title in the attached land to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p>Before dealing
with the issues I would like to observe that Counsel for the Claimant filed a Supplementary
Affidavit in support on the 27th December, 2018.&nbsp; This affidavit was filed at a time when the
Court has adjourned the matter for judgment.<o:p></o:p>In the first
place, the filing of the 27th December, 2018 Supplementary Affidavit
by Claimant was done without the leave of the Court.&nbsp; The record of the Court shows that on the 18th
December, 2018, the Court made the following orders:<o:p></o:p>“Case is adjourned to 14th
January, 2019 for Judgment.&nbsp; Let the
Deputy sheriff discharge the movable items stated in paragraph 10a, 10b, 10f,
10i that is to say the Scania Truck, Piguely Crane, Iveco Tipper Truck and the
500 KVA Generator are hereby discharged from attachment.” <o:p></o:p>It is my view that the Claimant ought
to have obtained the leave of the Court before filing the 27th
December, 2018 affidavit or show exceptional circumstances in order for the
Court to allow the supplementary affidavit to be accepted. In the South African
case of JAMES BROWN HAMER (Pty) LIMITED
v SIMMONS 963(4) SA 656 (A) 660E – F, it was stated that: <o:p></o:p>“where,
as in the present case, an affidavit is tendered in motion, proceedings both
late and out of its ordinary sequence, the party tendering it is seeking not a
right, but an indulgence from the court: he must both advance his explanation
of why the affidavit is out of time and satisfy the court that, although the
affidavit is late, it should, having regard to all the circumstances of the
case, nevertheless be r</main>