ECONOMIC ORGANISED & CRIME OFFICE VS MENZGOLD GHANA LIMITED & ANOR.
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE MRS. ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an application for review of a freezing order on a property owned by the Applicant but tenanted by Nana Appiah Mensah, who is under investigation by the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO). The Court first established its jurisdiction to hear the case, citing a transfer order by the Chief Justice. The Court then examined the evidence of ownership provided by the Applicant and the existing tenancy agreement. Despite acknowledging the Applicant's ownership, the Court refused to revoke or vary the freezing order. The Court reasoned that the tenant, Nana Appiah Mensah, still has an interest in the property until February 2020, and that EOCO's investigation into MenzGold Ghana Limited and Nana Appiah Mensah is ongoing. The Court decided to maintain the status quo, allowing the freezing order to remain in place pending the investigation or until it lapses after 12 months. The Court also ordered the Applicant to submit certified copies of his title documents to EOCO. This decision balances the property rights of the owner with the needs of an ongoing criminal investigation, demonstrating the court's approach to handling competing interests in property subject to a freezing order.
It is provided under Sections 38 and 39 of the Economic and Organized Crime Office Act, 2010 Act 804 as follows: DURATION OF A FREEZING ORDER Sec 38.
b) Twelve months after the date the order is made or a later date determined by the Court, or(c) A confiscation order or pecuniary penalty order is made in respect of the property which is the subject of the order.
Review of freezing order Sec.
39 (1) a person who claims an interest in property which is the subject of a freezing order shall apply to the Court for a review of the order on notice to the Executive Director, within fourteen days after the issue of the freezing order.
The Applicant herein who claims ownership of a property known as No. 20A Mulberry Street, situate on plot No. 673 Block 15 Section 114, East Legon, filed the instant application under Section 39 of Act 804 for a Review of the order for confirmation of freezing of said property.
Even though the application was served on the Economic and Organized Crime Office through its Secretary Mabel Avorgbel on 13th February 2019, no affidavit in opposition had been filed at the time of the hearing of the application.
This does not entitle the Applicant to an automatic grant of the order sought.
The Court will proceed to make a determination based on the affidavit evidence and submissions made by Counsel for the Applicant.
I will comment on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this Review application before delving into the merits thereof.
Order 42 rule (4) of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2004 C. I. 47 provides that: Judge to hear application 4. Where the Judge who gave the judgment or made the order sought to be reviewed, continues to hold office at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of three months followin