NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs. CASSARY CONTRUCTION LTD, ABDUL KADIRI AMIDU, ZUBAIDA ABDUL KADIRI AND CHARLES YEBOAH [2019]DLHC7554

NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs. CASSARY CONTRUCTION LTD, ABDUL KADIRI AMIDU, ZUBA... [2019]DLHC7554

Date	2019-05-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/BFS/0050/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7554

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

ABENA NTRAKWA MENSAH WITH PAULINA DANSO FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPLICANT

J.K. YEBOAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC7554
																																						<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" >NDK
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CASSARY CONTRUCTION LTD, ABDUL KADIRI AMIDU, ZUBAIDA ABDUL
KADIRI AND CHARLES YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.CM/BFS/0050/19&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;DATE: 31ST
MAY 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ABENA NTRAKWA MENSAH WITH PAULINA DANSO
FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

J.K. YEBOAH FOR THE DEFENDANTS
RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JEROME
NOBLE-NKRUMAH, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>MOTION ON NOTICE FOR INTERIM
PRESERVATION OF FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE AFFIDAVIT
IN SUPPORT PURSUANT TO ORDER 25 RULE 2 OF CI 47 AND UNDER IN THE INHERENT
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff applicant on the 8/4/19
filed a repeat application Interim preservation of funds from the proceeds of
sale of property described in the affidavit in support. In the court’s ruling
refusing the grant in the previous application, the court had argued that the
property had not been sold as no consent had been granted by the lands
Commission and so therefore there was nothing to preserve.<o:p></o:p>In the present application the
applicants Mark Ofori deposes amongst others that by the agreement between the
parties proceeds from the sale of the property were to be used to repay the facility
granted the 1st defendant. He goes further that consent has been
granted the 1st defendant and sale has indeed taken place. Basically
therefore the applicant says if sale has taken place the funds therefrom ought
to be preserved.<o:p></o:p>Responding, the defendants admit sale
has taken place but add that 1st defendant has reinvested the funds
in its business and consequently there are no funds to be preserved. The defendants
draw court attention to there being two sources of repayment of the facility
granted the 1st defendant. The primary source being proceeds from
the sale of land and secondary being the liquidation security the defendants
put up for the facility.<o:p></o:p>The applicant has come under Order 25 Rule 2 of CI 47 which reads<o:p></o:p>-Detention, Preservation of Property<o:p></o:p>[1] on
the application of any party to a cause or matter the court may make an order
for the detention, custody or preservation of any property which is the subject
matter of the cause or matter in respect of which any question may arise in the
action, or may order the inspection of any such property in the possession of a
party <o:p></o:p>As the plaintiff applicant sues for a liquidated
amount advanced in a facility to the 1st defendant for the purchase
land, proceeds from sale of same become a subject matter of the plaintiff’s
action so the application under this rule is well grounded.<o:p></o:p>The claim being a liquidated one Order
25 Rule 2 [3] is employed by the court. However it is &nbsp;required amongst others &nbsp;that the order be made against the person in
possession or custody of the property in dispute as decided in Garad v Edge &amp;Sins (1899) 58 LJ Ch,CA.
<o:p></o:p>The respondents assert that 1st
defendant has reinvested the funds in its business, I hold the view that 1st
defendant cannot be said in those circumstances to be in possession or has
custody of the funds in the sense as we all know it. The applicant has not
contradicted this reinvestment claim by the respondents.
As this court must
make orders that can be enforced it will be fruitless in the face of this claim
to make this order at this time as there will be nothing to preserve. In the
circumstances I decline to grant this application and same is dismissed.<o:p></o:p>

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