ATORBU MAHAMADU CLETUS & 52 ORS vs MENZGOLD GHANA LTED & ANOTHER

This is an application filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant for preservation of the sum of GH¢3, 000, 000. 00 until the final determination of the Suit.

Counsel for EOCO has raised a preliminary legal objection on the grounds stated as follows: 1. That the present application sins against Order 25 rule 1 of C. I. 47 in that the Plaintiff/Applicants did not attach a Statement of Case as provided by Order 25 rule 1 (3) of C. I. 47. And 2. That the application filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants will have the effect of reviewing the Freezing Order made on the 21st January, 2019 by the High Court 4, Commercial Division.

It was contended by Counsel that it being a review application, it ought to have been brought within 14 days.

With all due respect to Counsel for EOCO, Order 25 rule 1(3) of C. I. 47 read carefully reveal that it is applicable to applications for Interim Injunctions.

In respect of applications for preservation and detection of properties, it is the rule 2 of Order 25 of C. I. 47 that regulate it.

It is therefore wrong for Counsel for EOCO to assume that the broad heading under Order 25 implies that every single provision under Order 25 applies to Injunctions.

On the question of review of the Freezing Order granted by my brother, I do not think, it constitutes a barrier to the making of preservation orders.

The fact is that the Freezing Orders only empowered the EOCO to freeze the assets of Menzgold Ghana Limited.

This in my view does not prevent any Customer of Menzgold to go to Court to have his or her special interest in the assets so frozen to be preserved by a Court.

In doing so, it would be wrong for EOCO to think that the preservation orders constitute a review of the Freezing Order.

It is noted that the review referred to under Section 39 (1) of Act 804 has nothing to do with applications filed for preservation of properties.

Where any party requires the review of the Freezing Order, that party has 14 days from the date of the Freezing Order to file the said application for review.

A careful reading of Section 39 (2) of Act 804 clearly demonstrates that the review is in relation to the Freezing Order made by the Court.

It states: “The Court shall revoke on vary the order on subject the order to conditions directed by the Court on hearing the Interested Party. ”It is observed that review applications of this nature are to be brought and heard by the Judge who made the said order.

The instant Suit has nothing to do with the Suit t