ADNA TRUCKS & AUTOMOBILE vs STEPHEN VIZAH

At the last sitting, the Plaintiff/Applicant moved a Motion on Notice for Reserve Price dated 25th April, 2023 relying on the 4 paragraph Affidavit in Support and the annexure.

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant submitted that the depositions contained in Respondent’s Affidavit in Opposition filed by the Defendant/Respondent dated 5th May, 2023 does not challenge the application itself. That the deposition about the payment of money after the attachment of the property in issue is not a reason for the court to refuse the instant application. Counsel therefore prayed the court to grant same.

However, Counsel for Defendant/Respondent opposed the instant application on the grounds that there is no evidence that the movable properties of the Respondent has been seized, valued and auctioned since that is a condition precedent to the sale on immovable property. Counsel submitted further that the Force Sale Value as stated in the Valuation Report is very low and about less than ¼ of the Market Sale Value. Thus, he believes there must be a second Valuation Report. It is the case of Counsel for Respondent that though the aforementioned submission is not contained in their Affidavit in Opposition, these are points of law that can be raised at any time.

In response, Counsel for Applicant submitted that the High Court is a Court of Record and lawyers are expected to sit in the comfort of their offices to prepare processes that show their position on whatever is before the court. In that regard, you cannot file an Affidavit in Opposition which clearly states your position and speak at large in court.

Counsel for Applicant submitted further that the answer to the question raised by Counsel for Respondent on the subject of immovable properties can be gleaned through a search report. That the law is not that a Judgment Creditor must go looking for movable properties of the Judgment Debtor before a Judgment Creditor can qualify to attach immovables and that the law is that if the Judgment Debtor has movables which can retire the judgment debt, it is incumbent on him [Respondent herein] to make them available to be attached. Counsel submitted that the immovable property in issue was used as security for the transaction by the Respondent and therefore the issue of attaching movables first is immaterial.

Lastly, Counsel for Applicant submitted that the Affidavit in Opposition does not raise any legal issues challenging the propriety of the execution processes as he is