Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 7, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
JUDGMENT
The Claimant/Plaintiff in this interpleader suit is contending that Mercedes Benz with registration number AS-8672-Z is his bona fide property, and cannot therefore be attached and sold in execution of the judgment debt of one James Boateng, the judgment debtor.
Judgment was given against the judgment debtor by this Court and in execution of the judgment the vehicle in dispute was attached. The claimant/plaintiff put in an interpleader, claiming as already stated that he had already purchased the vehicle from the judgment debtor before the same was attached. In his evidence, the claimant said it was one Asuman who brought the car to a garage at Santasi Roundabout, Kumasi prior to the purchase and that the vehicle was registered in the name of the Defendant/ Judgment Debtor. According to the claimant, they went to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) office at Obuasi for the vehicle to be transferred into his name. Claimant tendered in evidence the Change of Ownership letter addressed to the Principal Technical Officer, DVLA, Kumasi. It was admitted and marked Exhibit A. The Form C (Transfer of Ownership form) covering the car was also tendered in evidence and marked Exhibit C. He stated further that he was in China when his father told him that the car had been attached in execution of judgment of the Court.
William Asuman was the only witness called by the claimant. He testified that the Defendant/Judgment debtor gave the Mercedes Benz with registration number AS-8672-Z to him to assist in selling the same. That he met the claimant who purchased it for GHC 20000. He contended that claimant paid GHC 15000 to him and together with the judgment debtor they advanced the money to the Plaintiff/ Judgment Creditor to defray part of the debt. That a change of name in respect of the document covering the car was subsequently effected.
The claimant instituted the instant interpleader suit under Order 44 rule 12(1) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47 which states:
“A person who makes a claim to or in respect of a property taken or intended to be taken in execution under process of the Court, or to the proceeds or value of any such property, shall give notice of the claim to the Registrar and shall include in the notice a statement of the person’s address for service.”
My understanding of the wording of Order 44 rule 12 as a whole is that property attached in execution of judgment cannot be alienated without leave of t
AI Generated Summary
The High Court considered an interpleader brought by a purchaser claiming ownership of a Mercedes Benz bearing registration AS-8672-Z that had been seized in execution of a judgment against James Boateng. The claimant testified that he bought the car through William Asuman, an intermediary, and completed transfer formalities with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), tendering a Change of Ownership letter (Exhibit A) and Form C (Exhibit C). The court explained the standard of proof in interpleader proceedings and the evidentiary burden under the Evidence Act. It held that Exhibits A and C were prima facie proof of ownership and that the transfer occurred on 23 October 2014 before attachment on 25 November 2014. The judgment creditor failed to rebut the prima facie case. The vehicle was declared not executable and ordered released.