AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK & 5 ORS VS PBC LIMITED

On 26th June, 2023 the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants) filed a motion before this court under Order 27 Rule 1 of C. I. 47. The motion is praying the court for an order for the appointment of a receiver to collect revenues which the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent) would be paid by COCOBOD and other sources pending the determination of the case.

The motion was opposed by the Respondent.

The motion was argued for and against on 5th September, 2023. I have gone through the documents filed in support and in opposition to the application.

Under Order 27 Rule 1 of C. I. 47, the court can grant interlocutory order in all cases in respect of an appointment of a receiver pending the determination of a case.

Any of the parties in a case can make such application before the court.

In this case, the amount the Applicants are claiming from the Respondent is over Four hundred and ninety-five million cedis (GH¢495, 000, 000. 00) which is quite colossal.

In that case, the Applicants should be assured that in case they get judgment in future, it would not be a pyrrhic victory or would not be rendered nugatory.

On the other hand, the Respondent also needs money to run its activities, and also the fact that judgment has not yet been given in the case.

The parties in this case executed a document in 2019 in respect of the consolidated loans from the Applicants to the Respondent.

It has been attached to the application as exhibit CB1. It is the repayment of the consolidated loans which has given birth to this case.

The Respondent in exhibit CB1 agreed to secure the repayment of the loans with monies it would receive from COCOBOD.

There is no evidence before the court that exhibit CB1 was obtained by recourse to fraud or undue influence or duress.

There is no evidence before the court that the contents of exhibit CB1 have been vitiated by any of the factors which can vitiate a contract.

All the parties’ representatives signed exhibit CB1. The law is settled, that parties to a contract would not be permitted to avoid the contract unless, there are valid lawful reasons to do so.

It is not the duty of the court to make contract for parties.

Therefore, where the terms of a contract such as exhibit CB1 have been reduced into writing, the court would interpret them to give effect to the intention of the parties.

See: POKU v GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [1989-90] 2 GLR 37 CA Again, exhibit CB1 was executed by the accredited