APPRO GHANA LIMITED v. MICHAEL ASANTE AKUFFO & ORS, CLAIMANTS/APPELLANTS: GENEVIEVE A. AWERE & ORS
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADUAMA OSEI JA (PRESIDING)
- SENYO DZAMEFE JA
- WELBOURNE (MRS.) JA
Areas of Law
- Commercial Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around an interpleader proceeding initiated after the Execution Creditor wrongfully attached the Claimants' properties following a judgment in their favor. The trial Court found the attachment wrongful but declined to award damages, directing the Claimants to file a fresh action. On appeal, the appellate court held that damages could indeed be awarded within the interpleader proceedings, setting aside the trial Court's order and affirming the award of damages to the Claimants. This judgment underscores the importance of interpreting procedural rules in a manner that achieves comprehensive and effective justice.
ADUAMA OSEI JA:
In this judgment, the Plaintiff/Respondent is referred to as “the Execution Creditor”, the Defendants are referred to as “the Judgment Debtors”, and the Claimants/Appellants are referred to as “the Claimants”.
The Execution Creditor and the Judgment Debtors submitted their dispute to mediation in the Commercial Division of the High Court, Kumasi, and pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement filed by them at the end of the mediation proceedings, the High Court, on the 8th of July, 2009, entered judgment in favour of the Execution Creditor against the Judgment Debtors in the sum of GHȼ544,000.00, plus interest up to 25th December, 2009.
In an attempt to go into execution, the Execution Creditor caused certain movable and immovable properties to be attached, but the attachment was objected to by the Claimants, namely, Genevieve A. Awere, Top Principles Limited, Nice Things Limited, Gloria Ofosu Koranteng and Akwasi Appiah, who filed a joint notice of claim under Order 44, rule 12 (1) of the Rules of the High Court, CI. 47. Upon service of the notice of claim on it, the Execution Creditor, under Order 44, rule 12 (2) of CI. 47, caused a notice disputing the claim to be filed and the Claimants not having withdrawn their claim, the Registrar of the High Court interpleaded by applying to the Court ex-parte under Order 44, rule 12 (4) of CI. 47 for an order requiring the Claimants and the Execution Creditor to appear before the Court for the issue between them to be determined. An order to that effect was made by the Court on the 23rd of October, 2009.
Evidence was taken by the trial Court and at the end of the proceedings, Counsel for the Claimants submitted that the properties of the Claimants had been unlawfully attached and invited the trial Court to award damages and costs to the Claimants.
In its judgment, delivered on the 30th of October, 2015, the trial Court expressed the view that the Execution Creditor had not exercised due diligence in causing the attachment of the Claimants’ properties and held that the attachment was wrongful. The trial Court also found that the Claimants had suffered loss and damage as a result of the wrongful attachment. As a relief, the trial Court ordered the release of the attached properties from further execution but declined to grant the request of Counsel for the Claimants for the award of damages. Rather, it ordered the Claimants to institute a fresh action for damages, explaining that damages “cannot be g