OLD PARK ENGINEERING SERVICE vs. CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED & ANOR [2023]DLHC16320

Date	2023-09-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0486/2018
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16320

HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.

FRED ASARE DANQUAH FOR PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT

MOSES BAAFI ACHEAMPONG HOLDING BRIEF FOR EDWIN LETSA KPEDOR FOR DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/APPLICANTS

[2023]DLHC16320
																																						<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" >&nbsp;OLD PARK ENGINEERING
SERVICE <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED
&amp; ANOR <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
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;">

SUIT
NO. CM/RPC/0486/2018&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: 22ND&nbsp;SEPTEMBER 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>FRED
ASARE DANQUAH FOR 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;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘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;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>I have listened to the submissions by counsel for
the Defendants and the Plaintiff. I have also gone through the documents filed
in support and in opposition to the motion filed by the Defendants on 7th
June, 2023 for the court to vary its orders in respect of the Reserved Price
dated 7th February, 2023. <o:p></o:p>I have considered the antecedents of this case.
The Plaintiff’s counsel has informed the court that the Judgment Debt as at
today, 22nd September, 2023 would be about USD5,000,000.00 which is
about GH¢60,000,000.00. <o:p></o:p>In cases of an auction, after the Judgment
Creditor has been paid and the State has received its 3% tax and the Auctioneer
has also been paid the auctioneer’s fees, the Judgment Debtor is given any amount
which would be left.<o:p></o:p>It means that if there is any means by which the court
can ensure that the attached property is sold far more than the judgment debt,
the court must assist in that direction. <o:p></o:p>The Defendants have attached two valuation reports
to their application as exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’. The two reports put the forced
sale price of the attached properties at GH¢99,458,201.00. The two reports are
from Assenta Property Consulting Limited and Quans Consult Limited. The two entities
have been described in the reports which are exhibits ‘‘D’ and ‘E’ as
consultants, valuers etc.<o:p></o:p>These are experts in the field of valuation of
properties. It is the law that a court is not bound by the evidence or opinion
given by an expert such as a valuer.&nbsp;
However, it is equally the law that a court should give good reasons why
an expert opinion is to be rejected.<o:p></o:p>See: TETTEH &amp; ANOR V HAYFORD (SUBSTITUTED BY) LARBI &amp; DECKER [2012]
1 SCGLR 417<o:p></o:p>SASU V WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO. LTD. [1960] GLR 4 CA<o:p></o:p>DARBAH AND ANOTHER V AMPAH [1989-1990] 1 GLR 598 CA<o:p></o:p>I do not have any reason to reject the opinion of
the experts as stated in exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff counsel’s objection to the experts
opinion is oral and not documentary unlike exhibits ‘D and E’. The law is
settled, that where oral evidence or averment conflicts with documentary
evidence such as exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’, the documentary evidence must prevail, where
the documentary evidence is authentic and genuine.<o:p></o:p>See: WOOD (SUBSTITUTED BY) ASANTE-KORANTENG v TAMAKLOE
AND DERBAN [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 852<o:p></o:p>FOSUA &amp;
ADU-OPOKU v DUFIE (DECEASED) AND ADU-POKU MENSAH [2009] SCLGR 310<o:p></o:p>ATADI v LADZEKPO
[1981] GLR 218 CA<o:p></o:p>YORKWA v
DUAH [1992-1993] GBR 278 CA<o:p></o:p>REPUBLIC v
NANA AKUAMOAH BOATENG II, EX PARTE DANSOA AND ANOTHER [1982-1983] GLR 913 SC<o:p></o:p>ABBEY AND OTHERS
v ANTWI V [2010] SCGLR 17<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I also do
not have power to place the Plaintiff counsel’s oral submission over the
documentary evidence by virtue of principle of stare decisis as the above cases
have held in such conflict between oral and documentary evidence.<o:p></o:p>I am therefore of the view, that justice would be
be</main>