NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES vs . AHAMAN ENTERPRISE LIMITED, ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ALEX A. ADUKO [2021]DLSC10690

NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES vs . AHAMAN ENTERPRISE LIMITED, ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ALEX... [2021]DLSC10690

Date	2021-06-02
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/65/2019
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10690

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

ALFRED BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS JNR. WITH HIM KWAME AMANANOR AND

BELINDA OTOO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT-JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT.

GODFRED YEBOAH DAME WITH HIM NANA ATTUA BRENYA OTCHERE

(PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) AND AKAWARE ATENDAM (STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT-JUDGMENT DEBTOR/APPLICANT.

[2021]DLSC10690
																																						<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<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT-JUDGMENT
CREDITOR/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AHAMAN ENTERPRISE LIMITED, ATTORNEY-GENERAL
AND ALEX A. ADUKO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT-JUDGMENT
DEBTOR/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/65/2019 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
2ND JUNE, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ALFRED BANNERMAN-WILLIAMS
JNR. WITH HIM KWAME AMANANOR AND BELINDA OTOO FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT-JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

GODFRED
YEBOAH DAME WITH HIM NANA ATTUA BRENYA OTCHERE (PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY) AND
AKAWARE ATENDAM (STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT-JUDGMENT DEBTOR/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), DOTSE
JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AMEGATCHER JSC<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:
150%;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>&nbsp;GBADEGBE JSC:-&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This matter comes before us
in the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction at the instance of the execution-
debtor-applicant (hereinafter described as the applicant) who alleges that it
has fully paid up its indebtedness under the process of execution issued pursuant
to the judgment of this Court dated November 28, 2014 and accordingly further
processes directed at execution by the execution-creditor -respondent (hereinafter
described as the respondent) are wrongful. Initially, when &nbsp;the application came before us, we were of the
view that it &nbsp;was unusual, &nbsp;but &nbsp;after giving&nbsp;
&nbsp;anxious consideration to the &nbsp;question raised for our decision whether the
continuous&nbsp; levying of execution &nbsp;under the judgment of the Court is lawful, we came
to the opinion that it &nbsp;properly arises within
the inherent jurisdiction of the court-that which enables the court to fulfil
itself properly by doing justice between the parties in so far as what is
sought from it has not been expressly taken away by statute. Summing up the
nature of the inherent jurisdiction, the learned authors of Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 4th Edition, volume 37 write at paragraph 14 of page 23 as
follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“In sum, it may be said that the inherent
jurisdiction of the court is a virile and viable doctrine and has been defined
as being the reserve or fund of powers, a residual source of powers, which the
court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in
particular to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between
them.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The application having been fully heard subsequent
to which the parties submitted &nbsp;&nbsp;their closing arguments on July 15, 2020,
we&nbsp; &nbsp;now direct our attention to &nbsp;&nbsp;the determination of &nbsp;&nbsp;the
question whether indeed, the applicant has fully satisfied the judgment debt
under the judgment of this Court dated November 28, 2014.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Such was the disputation
concerning the total amount owed under the judgment that on 27 the March 2019, we
directed that accounts be inquired into between the parties. In making the
order appointing a referee, we adopted the prevailing practice in the
jurisdiction as set out in Order 28 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004, CI 47. The referee, who was appointed by consent of the parties was &nbsp;&nbsp;to
ascertain whether the exact amount owing by the respondent under the judgment
of the court dated November 28, 2014 has been fully paid. Whiles the applicant
contended that there was no amount owing from it to the respondent under the said
judgment, the respondent &nbsp;&nbsp;on the other hand contended that there is an
outstanding amount of GHS 56,745.80. The referee, PWC, an accounting firm
undertook its task and submitted its report, which is in evidence as Exhibit
CE1 and was cross-examined by the parties. At the end of the hearing, it is
patent that the only question for our determination is whether indeed, the applicant
has paid up the entire judgment debt. The said question may be formulated
alternatively whether there is any outstanding amount owing from the applicant
to the respondent. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;From the report, the referee proposed
three different scenarios for our consideration in determining whether the
amount duly owing from the execution debtor (applicant) to the execution creditor
(respondent) under the judgment of the Court has been satisfied. The various
scenarios presented the Court vary in their conclusions on the state of
accounts between the parties to the application herein. In our thinking, the
referee has by the nature of the report placed us in a position that requires us
to make a choice between the various scenarios submitted contrary to the terms
of its mandate as </main>