DR. JAMES B. AMOFA VS DR. KING A. SALAMI

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE AUCTIONING AND SALE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PROPERTIES

The Applicant herein is praying this honourable court for an order setting aside the auctioning and sale of the defendant’s property at No. A32, Ashongman Estates Kwabenya, Accra and Toyota Corolla salon car with registration number GR 3994 Z. According to the applicant, the auction and sale of the Defendant’s property at Kwabenya aforementioned without notice to his personal representatives constitute a breach of the rules of natural justice.

That the house and vehicle were auctioned and sold on 13th April, 2023 and 4th May 2022 respectively following a notice published on 28th March, 2023 and 20th April, 2022. The applicant further avers that the notice for the sale of the house was in breach of the notice period provided under the |Auction Sales Law 1989 (PNDCL 230) and that the said auction and sale were nothing but illegal, null and void.

The application also depose that, the auctioneer Michael Horve Tsigbe set up a scheme where he auctioned and sold Defendant’s vehicle aforementioned to his own brother Wisdom Kwaku Tsigbe, a clear case of conflict of interest. That days even before the intended auctioning of the Defendant’s property No. A32 Ashongman Estates Kwabenya, Accra, the auctioneer was negotiating to sell the property of the deceased Defendant privately in contravention of PNDCL 230 and the Auction Sales Act, 2006 (Act 716). The applicant also alleges that the supposed auctioneer, Giant Mart as per the notice published in the Ghana Times newspaper on 20th April, 2022 has no capacity and does not meet the requirement for the issuance of a license in accordance with the laws governing auctioning practice in Ghana to auction the properties of the Applicant hence that auctioning was void ab initio.

The applicant furthermore alleges that, the supposed auctioning and sale of the defendant’s properties aforementioned was a grand scheme to enrich the supposed auctioneer and his cronies therefore same ought to be set aside.

The Plaintiff/Respondent is vehemently opposed to the instant application and avers that the said application is incompetent and benefit of any legal and factual basis.

That the instant application is based on concocted misrepresentations and half-truths.

According to the respondent, the defendant tried several times to stay execution before his death and was unsuccessful.

That the properties were all attached before the d