GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD vs. NOTRE DAME INVESTMENT LTD [2022]DLHC11634

Date	2022-05-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E2/46/20
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11634

HIS LORDSHIP DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J

BENJAMIN ACKAAH GYASI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT

YAA BOATEMAA OHENE-BONSU FOR AUGUSTINE KIDISIL ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT /DEBTOR/APPLICANT

[2022]DLHC11634
																																						<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" >GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NOTRE DAME INVESTMENT LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN ACKAAH GYASI ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">YAA BOATEMAA OHENE-BONSU FOR
AUGUSTINE KIDISIL ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT /DEBTOR/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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>&nbsp;Before
me is a motion on notice filed by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Applicant
(hereinafter called the “Applicant”) praying for an order clarifying the
judgment of the court delivered on 9th July, 2021.<o:p></o:p>The
background facts leading to the instant application are that on 8th May 2020,
the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent, (hereinafter called the Respondent)
instituted action against the Applicant for the following reliefs endorsed on
the Writ of Summons:<o:p></o:p>a)
Recovery of the balance of 50% of the Purchase Price for the land which the
Defendant agreed to purchase as per an Agreement dated 15/06/2018 by way of
specific performance.<o:p></o:p>b)
Alternatively, the recovery of the land which had been assigned to the
Defendant registered in the document dated 10/02/2020 with Deeds Registration
No. as 15931 under Serial No. 337/2000.<o:p></o:p>c)
An Order that the said registration be expunged from the records of Lands
Commission Secretariat Sekondi and re-entered in the name of the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>d)
Recovery of Legal Cost.<o:p></o:p>On
9th July 2021, this Court delivered judgment in favour of the Respondent and
granted the reliefs endorsed on the writ in the following terms:<o:p></o:p>“Consequently, I order the Defendant to pay the balance of 50% of the
Purchase Price (i.e., USD 2,500,000) for the land which the Defendant agreed to
purchase as per an Agreement dated 15/06/2018 by way of specific performance of
the said Agreement. In that regard, I order that the amount of GHC 1,000,000
stated as consideration in the Indenture of Assignment be changed to USD
5,000,000.00 to reflect the purchase price as agreed in the Contract of Sale.<o:p></o:p>Alternatively,
the Plaintiff shall recover the land which has been assigned to the Defendant
and registered in the document dated 10/02/2020 with the Deeds Registration No.
AS 15931 under the Serial No. 337/2000. If the alternative prevails, I order
that the said registration be expunged from the records of Lands Commission
Secretariat, Sekondi and re-entered in the name of the Plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p>It
is the alternative order that has triggered the instant application.<o:p></o:p>Meanwhile,
the Applicant appealed against the judgment on 30th July, 2021. The appeal is
pending before the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>In
an affidavit in support of the application, Applicant says that in an attempt
to enforce the judgment of the court, the Respondent procured the Lands
Commission Secretariat, Sekondi to expunge its name from the record of the
Lands Commission. That the Respondent seeks to enter possession without
reimbursing the purchase price of USD 2,500,000.00 paid to it. Applicant
acknowledges that the judgment of the court does not expressly state that the
Respondent must reimburse the Applicant the amount of USD 2,500,000.00 before
entering possession of the land, if the alternative order prevails. It is,
however, Applicant’s case that the unjust result that the Respondent recovers
possession of the land and hold on to the purchase price paid to it though the
Applicant did not exhaust the tenure of the lease is not the intendment of the
court. It is Applicant’s case that since the orders of the court are subject to
various interpretations, there is an ambiguity. It is therefore imperative for
the Court to clarify the ambiguity. That the Court has the inherent
jurisdiction to clarify its own orders to avoid any unintended harm or
miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Respondent is opposed to the
application. Respondent’s position is that the judgment of the court admits no
ambiguity and therefore does not require any further clarification. Also, all
the processes taken by the Applicant lends credence to the fact that the
judgment of this court is clear, unambiguous and same was perfectly understood.
Respondent is also saying that the court after delivering its judgment has
become functus officio and could therefore not entertain the instant
application especially having regard to the fact that the Applicant has filed
an appeal against the said judgment. Respondent has invited the court to
dismiss the application.<o:p></o:p</main>