June 19, 2025
COURT OF APPEAL – (CIVIL DIVISION)
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
[1]. My Lords, the appeal before us presents the question of whether a trial court is bereft of jurisdiction in interpleader proceedings once auction of some of the attached properties is alleged to have taken place. The Bayport Savings and Loans PLC (hereafter “the Appellant”) appeals against the Ruling of the High Court, (General Jurisdiction Division 13), dated 19th July 2023. In that Ruling, the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s Notice of Claim brought under Order 44 Rule 12 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). The learned judge held, among other reasons, that the court was functus officio in respect of a certain Hyundai Elantra vehicle said to have been sold at auction and that the Appellant had failed to act timeously regarding a Jeep Compass vehicle still under attachment.
[2]. The Appellant contends that the learned judge’s decision is erroneous and has advanced several grounds of appeal. In essence, the Appellant submits that it is the rightful owner of the two vehicles (a Hyundai Elantra with registration number GN 5214-19 and a Jeep Compass with registration number GN 3883-19) and that the High Court improperly dismissed its claim, thus allowing BF Petroleum Limited (the Respondent) to proceed against assets that do not belong to the Defendant/Judgment Debtor. [3]. Having carefully reviewed the Record of Appeal (ROA), the various affidavits (Affidavit of Interest, Affidavit of Dispute, Supplementary Affidavit of Interest, Supplementary Affidavit of Dispute), and the submissions before this Court, we deliver our judgment as follows.
(a) Proceedings in the Court Below
[4]. BF Petroleum Limited (Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent) obtained a default judgment in the High Court against Bluesoil Investment Limited (Defendant/Judgment Debtor). Pursuant to that judgment, the Respondent levied execution by attaching several assets believed to belong to the Defendant/Judgment Debtor, including the two vehicles in dispute. The Appellant, upon learning that the vehicles it claimed to own had been attached, filed a Notice of Claim in the High Court under Order 44 Rule 12 of C.I. 47. By this notice, the Appellant sought to demonstrate its ownership interest in the said vehicles and to have them released from attachment.
[5]. The Respondent filed an Affidavit of Dispute, contending that the Hyundai Elantra had already been auctioned lawfully
AI Generated Summary
Bayport Savings and Loans PLC appealed a High Court ruling that dismissed its Notice of Claim in interpleader proceedings concerning a Hyundai Elantra (GN 5214-19) and a Jeep Compass (GN 3883-19) attached in execution of BF Petroleum Limited’s default judgment against Bluesoil Investment Limited. The Court of Appeal, per Owusu-Dapaa JA, held that Order 44 Rules 12 and 13 permit the court to determine ownership and entitlement to proceeds or value even after an auction, so the trial court was not functus officio. The court found Bayport promptly filed its Notice of Claim upon learning of the attachment and proved ownership via DVLA Form C transfers. It set aside the High Court’s ruling, declared the attachments wrongful, restrained any sale of the Jeep Compass, recognized Bayport’s entitlement to proceeds from the Elantra if sold, and awarded costs against BF Petroleum.