ABII NATIONAL SAVINGS & LOANSLIMITED vs ABOAFO BUYING COMPANY LIMITED & ORS

On the 5th of March, 2025, the Claimant herein Madam Alberta Anyigba filed a notice of claim in the registry of this Court.

The notice reads as follows:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that MADAM ALBERTA ANYIGBA, the Claimant herein claims that the property described as No. 148 Block 5 Section 115 situate at Adjirigano in the Greater Accra Region of the Republic of Ghana on Registry Map No. 001/115/1992 AND Certificate No. GA 31801 attached in execution of the Judgment in this suit is a spousal property and not the sole property of the Defendant/Judgment Debtor and that same cannot be attached.

In her Affidavit of interest (which she wrongfully titled Affidavit of Claimant) filed on the 16th of May, 2025 the Claimant deposed that she is the lawful wife of the 4th Defendant, George Mate-Kole in the substantive suit, RPC/236/2015.

According to her, it came to her notice that their matrimonial property No. 148 Block 5 Section 115, Adjirigano was to be attached in execution of the Judgment. Her claim is to a part of the property as evidenced by her own notice of claim. Her claim is that she has been customarily married to the 4th Defendant Judgment Debtor since 1996, which union is blessed with a Twenty-Seven (27) year old son.

The Parties converted their marriage into an ordinance marriage in 2022. She therefore prays the Court for her interest to be protected by discharging the property from attachment.

The Execution Judgment Creditor filed an affidavit of dispute (again wrongly entitled an affidavit in opposition) and deposed that the 4th Defendant Judgment Debtor voluntarily executed a mortgage agreement with the Bank when he offered his landed property as security for the loan. The Execution Creditor further deposed that the property used as security is the personal self- acquired property of the Judgment Creditor and not joint property.

The Judgment Creditor believes that the Claimant’s intervention is a deliberate attempt calculated to frustrate the execution process and asked the Court to dismiss the claim.

The law is that interpleader actions are held to enable the Deputy Sheriff obtain a relief and get a decision from the Court as to the proper person to whom he has to release the property. It is therefore not an ordinary action and is meant for the benefit of the Deputy Sheriff to give him a relief and know the right person he ought to release the property to.

In Salama v Sharani [1973] 2 GLR 364, Abban J (as he then was) held that

“Interp