CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF BANKERS VS ANTHONY THOMFORD & ANOR

In a writ issued out of the Registry of this court on 18th October 2012, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants the following reliefs:

1. The sum of GH¢200,000.00 being loss of use suffered by the Plaintiff at the cost of GH¢500.00 per day for 400 working days as a result of the unlawful detention of the Plaintiff’s properties by the Defendants jointly and severally, more fully described in the Schedule to the Statement of Claim.

2. A further order for the payment of damages by the Defendants to the Plaintiff if the detention persists beyond the date of filing of Writ of Summons until the release of the properties or until the date of judgment, whichever is earlier.

3. An order for the immediate release of the Plaintiff’s properties to it by the Defendants.

4. Costs.

5. An order that the 1st Defendant repays the sum of GH¢33,009.33 which he fraudulently withdrew from the court back into court to the credit of the Plaintiff who had paid it into court as a condition for the Court of Appeals order for stay of execution.

6. Interest on the sum of GH¢33,009.33 at the prevailing bank rate from the date of withdrawal by the 1st Defendant until the date of final payment.

Only the 1st Defendant entered appearance and contested the instant suit. The 2nd Defendant never entered appearance and did not file any process before this court. In a bizarre turn of events, the 2nd Defendant only appeared in court as a witness for the Plaintiff and gave evidence as PW1. The 1st Defendant’s version of events was that it had lawfully gone into execution of its judgment since there was no pending order for stay of execution and no appeal pending against the decision rendered in its favour.

The issues set down for trial can best be described as a veritable shopping list. These are as follows:

1. Whether or not on 25th October 2011, upon the Supreme Court quashing the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Defendant was not bound to return the Plaintiff’s goods seized in execution?

2. Whether or not the 1st Defendant ever issued a writ of Fifa: Form 18 under Order 43 rule 13 of CI 47 to levy execution on Plaintiff’s goods?

3. Whether or not the Deputy Sheriff was bound to comply with the request made to him by the 1st Defendant in the discharge of his official duties as the Deputy Sheriff of this Honourable Court?

4. Whether or not the Deputy Sheriff informed the 1st Defendant about the seizure of Plaintiff’s goods?

5. Whether or not the 1st Defendant ha