DELIMAN OIL COMPANY LIMITED v. HFC BANK GHANA LIMITED
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- D. ADJEI, JA (PRESIDING)
- A. LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA
- B. ACKAH-YENSU, JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a dispute over ownership of a filing station attached in execution of a judgment debt against Limobia Company Ltd. The Plaintiff claimed ownership through a Dealership Agreement, while the Defendant argued that Limobia was the true owner. The trial court ruled against the Plaintiff, leading to an appeal. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently prove ownership of the disputed property, properly apply the burden of proof, and diligently pursue interpleader processes. The court reaffirmed principles on burden of proof, ownership by possession, and the requirement to follow statutory procedures.
BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU, JA
The Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter simply referred to as “Plaintiff”) instituted an action in the Commercial Division of the High Court sitting at Tamale against the Defendant/Respondent (also to be referred to as “Defendant”), claiming that Plaintiff was the lawful owner of a filing station situated at Savelugu on the Tamale/Bolgatanga Highway which Defendant had attached in execution of a judgment debt owed by Limobia Company Ltd.
According to the Plaintiff, it acquired the land from the Chief of Savelugu and put up the filing station, subsequent to which it contracted with Mesuna Abdallah under a Dealership Agreement to run the said filling station on commission basis. The Plaintiff averred further that it came to its notice that the Defendant had attached this filling station in execution of a judgment against Limobia Company Ltd in Suit No. E2/70/2010 titled HFC Bank (Gh) Ltd vrs. Limobia Company Ltd in respect of some financial transaction between the two parties. That, in execution of the said judgment, the Defendant had attached the Plaintiff’s Fuel Filing Station when it had never had any dealings with the Defendant and could not under any circumstances be liable to the Defendant.
The Defendant in its Statement of Defence narrated the chronology of events leading to the attachment of the property in dispute and its subsequent sale by auction. The Defendant contended that Limobia Company Limited not only run the filling station but also used the premises for selling water known as Limobia Drinking Water. This use of the premises, according to Defendant, clearly showed that Limobia Company Ltd was the owner of the property and not the Plaintiff. The Defendant contended further that the Plaintiff did not prosecute the Interpleader processes it had filed. That the reason for its failure to do so could only be that the Plaintiff had no interest whatsoever in the disputed property.
As stated above, the trial court entered judgment against the Plaintiff. It is against this judgment that the Plaintiff, aggrieved and dissatisfied, has filed this appeal which is mounted on two grounds; namely:
“(i) The judgment is against the weight of evidence
(ii) The judge erred in law on question of the burden of proof”.
Rule 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I.19) deals with “Notice and Grounds of Civil Appeals”. It provides inter alia as follows:
“8(1) Any appeal to the Court shall be by way of re-hearing and shall
be brought b