KEN KWAME ASAMOAH vs. STATE INSURANCE COMPANY [2022]DLSC11679

Date	2022-01-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/55/2021
Citation No.	[2022]DLSC11679

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

AMADU JSC

KULENDI JSC

YAW SARPONG BOATENG ESQ FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

BRIGHT OKYERE-ADJEKUM ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT APPELLANT.

[2022]DLSC11679
																																						<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" >KEN
KWAME ASAMOAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STATE
INSURANCE COMPANY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<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;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/55/2021&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: 18TH JANUARY, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>YAW SARPONG BOATENG ESQ
FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/<o:p></o:p>RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>BRIGHT OKYERE-ADJEKUM
ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT<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;">

APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;AMEGATCHER
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>On
the 18th of January 2022, we allowed the appeal in this matter and
reserved our reasons to be filed within 21 days. We proceed now to give the
reasons for our decision.<o:p></o:p>The
significance of this appeal lies in the determination of the legal effect of
payment of a judgment debt into court. Does the payment of a debt or judgment
debt into court discharge the payer or judgment debtor from all further
liabilities under the judgment to the payee or judgment creditor? The appellant
says it does while the respondent says it does not. Though, what is before us
is an interlocutory appeal arising from the refusal of the Court of Appeal to
grant a suspension of the entry of judgment/or stay of proceedings of execution
pending appeal, we are of the opinion that to avoid multiplicity of suits and
save the parties from further expense and time in unnecessary and unwarranted
litigation, this post-judgment interlocutory matter must be determined by us
exercising our powers under article 129(4) of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p>BRIEF FACTS<o:p></o:p>The
appellant is an insurance company while the respondent was the assured of the
appellant. The substantive dispute which brought the parties to court had to do
with a comprehensive insurance taken by the respondent from the appellant to
cover a Chevrolet Sports Car imported into the country. The car was snatched
from the wife of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, put in a claim for
Ghc116, 200.00 being the insured value of the car. When the appellant
repudiated liability, the respondent commenced an action at the High Court for
that sum plus interest at the commercial rate till the date of payment.<o:p></o:p>On
25th June 2014, the High Court delivered judgment in favour of the
respondent. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and
filed an application for a stay of execution. The Court of Appeal on 25th
November 2014 granted the stay on terms and ordered the appellant to pay the
entire judgment debt made up of Ghc116, 200.00 principal and Ghc138, 278.00
interest into court within 30 days from the date of the order. The Court
directed this money to be invested by the Registrar of the Court into an income
yielding investment in accordance with the standing directions regarding
money’s ordered to be paid into court by the Courts. The Court of Appeal
further ordered the appellant to pay the respondent the costs of Ghc8, 000.00
awarded by the High Court. This order was complied with by the appellant on 31st
December 2014. <o:p></o:p>Subsequently,
when the appeal was heard, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the
appellant and reversed the judgment of the High Court. The respondent also was
dissatisfied and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. On 21st
November 2018, the Supreme Court allowed the respondent’s appeal reversed the
judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the High Court judgment. <a name="_Hlk94860790">The respondent then applied to the High Court to withdraw
the money paid into court on 31st December 2014 together with the
interest accrued from the investment. This application was granted and the said
money was paid to the respondent/judgment creditor through his counsel on 25th
March 2019. </a><o:p></o:p>However,
another twist surfaced in this case drama. The respondent filed two notices of
‘entry of judgment’ in which he sought to calculate interest at the commercial
rate on the money paid into court from 25th June 2014 to 31st
January 2020 totalling Ghc353,048.08. The respondent justified this additional
interest based on the order made by Baffoe-Bonnie JSC when he delivered the
majority judgment of this court at the determination of respondent’s appeal. At
the last paragraph of the judgment, His Lordship ordered as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The plaintiff is given judgment on the amount of
Ghc116, 200.00, being the sum assured, and interest on the said amount at the
prevailing market rate till the date of the High Court judgment, and thereafter
interest calculated in accordance </main>