Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 7, 1968
HIGH COURT
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
On 29 April 1968, the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendants in a running-down action and was awarded damages of N¢5,684.00 together with N¢350.00 costs. The defendants have appealed against the judgment, and on 14 May 1968, the court on the application of the first defendant granted a stay of execution as to the sum of N¢2,250.00 only.
The State Insurance Corporation, the insurers of the first defendant's vehicle, after the judgment entered into negotiations for settlement, and it was agreed that the sum of N¢3,350.00 should be paid by them to the plaintiff in full settlement of the judgment debt and costs. The payment of the settled sum would be in further consideration of the abandoning of the appeal filed by the defendants. The settled figure of N¢3,350.00 has not been paid, and in the meantime the plaintiff, relying on her judgment, proceeded to execution in respect of the amount which was not affected by the stay of execution granted on 14 May 1968. The first defendant's vehicle No. GF 673 [p.995] was thus attached on or about 30 August 1968. The first defendant therefore brought this instant application praying for a stay of execution and also asking for the release of his vehicle.
There are two matters upon which the first defendant-applicant relies for a stay of execution. Firstly, it was argued on his behalf that the parties have agreed on the figure of N¢3,350.00 in full settlement and a discharge certificate had been signed by the plaintiff; secondly, the plaintiff has not produced a tax clearance certificate in terms of the Income Tax Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D,. 78), para. 81A (3) as inserted by paragraph 4 (1) (a) of Income Tax (Amendment) Decree, 1968 (N.L.C.D. 265), and so payment has not been made to the plaintiff. Both counsel admit that though a discharge certificate had been signed by the plaintiff actual payment has not been made to her in terms expressed in the discharge certificate (exhibit A).
I shall deal with the more important matter first and it is this: Whether the plaintiff should produce a tax clearance certificate before payment of the N¢3,350.00 is made to her by the State Insurance Corporation. The determination of this question calls for the construction of N.L.C.D. 78, para. 81A (3) as inserted by paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Income Tax (Amendment) Decree, 1968 (N.L.C.D. 265). The said section is couched in these words:
"81 A. (3) No insurance company shall pay any money in respect of a
AI Generated Summary
In Ghana’s High Court, Justice Edusei addressed post‑judgment enforcement after Muniratu Asunke’s successful running‑down action against the first defendant. Following an appeal and a limited stay, the State Insurance Corporation, insurer of the defendant’s vehicle GF 673, negotiated a settlement of N¢3,350 and prepared a discharge certificate conditioned on abandoning the appeal, but never paid. When Asunke executed on the unsuspended portion and attached GF 673, the first defendant sought a further stay and release, arguing a tax clearance certificate under income tax decrees prevented payment and that the discharge barred execution. Construing N.L.C.D. 78 para. 81A(3) and the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, the court held that third‑party rights arise under statute, not policy claims, so the tax clearance requirement applies to the insured, not Asunke. It found exhibit A void, rejected accord and satisfaction absent payment, deemed seven days a reasonable time to pay, upheld the attachment, and dismissed the application.