CRUICKSHANK v. OKOE

JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH J.A.

The applicant, Mr. Cruickshank, obtained a judgment against one Romanadi for ¢252.60 together with ¢3.96 costs. He subsequently applied successfully for the arrest of the judgment debtor, presumably when he suspected that the judgment debtor intended fleeing the country without satisfying the judgment debt. As a result of the arrest, the magistrate made an order that the judgment debtor should deposit £G200 (¢480.00) in court or provide sureties in the sum of ¢240.00 each to be justified. It should be explained that at the time of the order an appeal by the judgment debtor against the judgment was pending and so further costs were expected to be incurred. This may explain why the deposit and surety asked for were higher than the judgment debt. The appeal was dismissed in December 1965. The judgment debtor has since given proof of his suspected intention by actually absconding. He did not deposit any money into court. He produced two people as his sureties. But now a decree that the sureties should pay the applicant his judgment debt, in the absence of the judgment debtor, cannot be served on them. Neither can a writ of fi. fa. be executed against their properties. The simple reason for this turn of events is that they are not known at the respective addresses which they gave and cannot be found in Nima the area of Accra where they said they lived. The applicant has therefore lost the chance of recovering the fruits of the victory which he won in court. It is certainly a sad commentary on the state of the courts if they cannot protect a citizen to whom they have given judgment from being deprived of his award by some clever ruse of the losing party. Especially when that manoeuvre has actually been anticipated and an application has been made to the court purposely for protection against it. The applicant in the circumstances applies under paragraph 90 of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), for the amount to be recovered from the registrar of the Accra New Town District Court, Mr. J. Robert Okoe, whom he charges with negligence which has occasioned him this [p.20] loss. It is a novel complaint, which requires the spirit of a Hampden to lodge.

Paragraph 90 of the Decree reads as follows:

"If any officer employed to execute an order of Court wilfully or by neglect or omission loses the opportunity of executing it, then, on complaint of the person aggrieved and proof of the fact alleged, the High Court may if it thinks fit, orde