JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.
On 20 December 1969 I gave a decision dismissing the motion filed on behalf of the applicant and I reserved the reasons for the said decision. I now proceed to give the reasons for my so dismissing the motion.
On 12 January 1963 the respondent by a writ of summons commenced an action against Joseph Amo-Mensah in this court. The defendant entered an appearance on 26 January 1963 and after the pleadings and summons had been taken, the case dragged on for almost six years mainly due to adjournment after adjournment granted at the instance of the [p.135] defendant. At last on 28 January 1969, almost six years exactly after the defendant had entered his appearance, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant, the court adjudging that the respondent recover against the defendant the sum of N¢39,296.54 with N¢2,000 costs. I am not aware of any appeal lodged by the defendant. Apparently on 5 November 1969 the respondent caused a writ of fi. fa. to issue for the attachment of the properties of the defendant and the said properties were accordingly attached. The properties attached are alleged to be house No. C 1, extension block 4, plot 11 at Kumasi and goods in a store. The applicant who claims to be in partnership with the said Joseph Amo-Mensah applied to this court by motion on notice to the respondent praying for an order, "(1) removing the attachment levied on the property of Amo-Mensah Brothers and (2) setting aside the judgment irregularly obtained against Amo-Mensah Brothers on 27 June 1969."
At the hearing of the motion counsel for the applicant abandoned the prayer to set aside the judgment, and no argument was therefore advanced, and rightly so, for this was a rather extraordinary request by an applicant who was an obvious stranger to the suit. Counsel however argued very vigorously in support of an order removing the attachment on what is described as the property of Amo-Mensah Brothers. In his affidavit in support of the motion the applicant deposed: "The property attached belongs to a partnership." In his supplementary affidavit in opposition the respondent averred on oath as follows: "All the properties attached are not partnership properties as averred to by the applicant. They are the properties of Amo-Mensah the defendant-judgment-debtor."
I find it rather strange that the applicant did not obtain and file an affidavit from his partner denying ownership of the properties alleged to belong to him, but this i
