BOAKYE DACOSTA vs. NANA ANING AGYEI & ANOR NANA OHENEBAH BEMPA, AKWASI AGYEI [2020]DLHC9167

Date	2020-01-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INTS 12/2016
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC9167

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

JANET OWUSU FOR ASANTE KROBEA FOR THE CLAIMANT

SHADRACK YEBOAH OBENG WITH ERNEST OWUSU FORDJOUR YEBOAH FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLHC9167
																																						<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" >BOAKYE DACOSTA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA ANING
AGYEI &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>NANA OHENEBAH
BEMPA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>AKWASI AGYEI<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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.&nbsp; INTS 12/2016&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; &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:
23RD JANUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JANET
OWUSU FOR ASANTE KROBEA FOR THE CLAIMANT<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">

SHADRACK
YEBOAH OBENG WITH ERNEST OWUSU FORDJOUR YEBOAH FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT
CREDITOR/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE, HIGH COURT JUDGE<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
20th April, 2015 the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor obtained judgment
against the Defendants/Judgment Debtors herein. Subsequently, the property
described as Plot 24,Block A, Abrepo-Tikese was attached in execution of the
judgment. The Claimant/Applicant herein filed an interpleader suit claiming
that the said property belongs to him and his siblings. On 28th
February 2017, the court delivered judgment against the Claimant/Applicant
herein by dismissing the application. Aggrieved by the decision of the court,
the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 9th March 2017 and an
application for stay of execution on the same day. The application for stay of
execution was refused. On 29th August, 2019 the applicant herein
filed an application for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent and the Deputy Sheriff, High Court
(Commercial Division), Kumasi from ejecting the occupants of the aforesaid
property.<o:p></o:p>When
the application came up for hearing on 17th September, 2019, counsel
for the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent raised a preliminary legal point
on the propriety of the application. Counsel argued that the Applicant ought to
have filed a “Notice of Intention to Proceed” since the last time the matter
was heard was 30th May, 2017.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant’s response was that they need not file a “Notice of Intention
to Proceed” before an application of this nature can be brought. She submitted
that the instance where a Notice of Intention is required is where a case is
pending and for more than six months no action has been taken. That in the
instant case judgment has been given and an appeal has been filed. Thus, no
substantive case is pending before the court.<o:p></o:p>Order
37 rule 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2004, (CI 47) makes
provision for a procedural matter in the notice of intention to proceed after
lapse of more than six months. It provides:<o:p></o:p>“Where six months have
elapsed since the last step taken in any cause or matter, the party who wishes
to proceed shall give to every other party not less than twenty-eight days
notice of the intention to proceed.”<o:p></o:p>A
careful reading of this provision together with Order 37 of CI 47 as a whole
show that it is meant to regulate the proceedings subsequent to delay of a
matter. In fact, Order 37 regulate adjournments and delays in a cause or matter
pending before the court. It is my considered opinion that this rule does not
cover post judgment applications before the court. It only covers processes
relating to a substantive matter pending before the court i.e. from the issuing
of writ to judgment, for example. I have come to this conclusion because once a
court delivers its judgment no cause or matter in respect of the suit can be
said to be pending before the court. The court can only entertain post judgment
applications and from the provision,a party’s ability to file a post judgment
application cannot be tied to the rules pertaining to the conduct of
proceedings in a substantive action pending before the court.<o:p></o:p>There
is no doubt that the instant application for interlocutory injunction is a post
judgment application, as judgment in the substantive matter was delivered on
28th February 2017. It is,therefore,not necessary for the applicant to file a
notice of intention to proceed before filing the instant application within the
meaning of Order 37 rule 3. The result is that the preliminary legal objection
fails.<o:p></o:p>