ALICE FOSUA v. ESTHER OWUSU and ANOTHER

HONYENUGA J.A.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant from the decision of the High Court, Accra dated the 3rd day of July 2009.

The said decision granted an order for a stay of any further execution of the judgment in Suit No. INT.47/2007 dated 11th June 2001 which set aside the sale of plot No. 4, Cemetry close, Dansoman Housing Estate, Accra.

The facts of this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant obtained judgment against the defendant/respondent for ¢256,120,000.00 on the 11th June 2001.

He executed the said judgment by selling House Number 901/16, Dansoman- Sahara, the house in which the defendant/respondent lived.

The claimant/respondent caused a notice of claim, and a notice of dispute to be filed on her behalf.

As a result the Chief Registrar of the High Court issued an interpleader summons but it was struck out because the claimant was absent.

It was after this that the claimant/respondent caused a writ of summons numbered as BL648/2005 dated 13th July 2005 to be issued against the plaintiff/appellant, the defendant/respondent, the Deputy Chief Sheriff (The Chief Registrar), High Court, Accra and Jacob Vanderpuje, the auctioneer claiming for:-

“a. A declaration that plaintiff is the lessee of the whole of the property known and described as House No. 901/16 Dansoman (Sahara) Accra or plot No. 4 Cemetry Close Jonkobli Dansoman Accra having obtained same from the State Housing Ltd.

b. An order to restrain or vacate any order by any Court for the sale of House No.

901/16, Dansoman on satisfaction of any judgment- debt since the said property belongs to the plaintiff and not any other person.

c. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, Agents, Servants, Workmen, Assigns, Privies and Representatives from dealing with the said property described above to the detriment and deprivation of the plaintiff.

d. An order for the payment of legitimate expenses made by the plaintiff as a result of the negligence or mistaken conduct of the defendants.

e. General Damages”. The writ of summons was accompanied by a statement of claim.

Thereafter, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss the action under order 11 rule 18(1)(d) of C.I.47.

It is not clear from the record whether any ruling was delivered on the motion.

The claimant/respondent then filed a motion on notice for an order of stay of execution of the judgment which was struck out for want of prosecution.

Subsequently, the claimant/respondent caused a motion on no