ECUMENICAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OP SOCIETY UA vs WE CARE ORGANIZATION & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an interpleader action stemming from a judgment obtained in 1999 by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. The Claimant intervened, claiming an interest in a cold store attached to the judgment. The initial interpleader application and subsequent stay of execution motions filed by the Claimant were dismissed. In 2022, the Claimant filed another interpleader application, which was also dismissed. The court held that the Claimant had no interest in the disputed property and that the prior interpleader application had been summarily and properly determined. The second application was deemed an abuse of process and estopped by the earlier decision under the doctrine of res judicata.
RULING ON INTERPLEADER APPLICATION MADE BY THE CLAIMANT HEREIN
1. INTRODUCTION[a] This matter commenced some time in 1998, and it is obvious from the record of proceedings that the Plaintiff herein obtained judgment against the Defendants some time in 1999; and the Plaintiff/judgment creditor sought to go into execution against the Defendants/judgment debtors herein. [b] The Plaintiff/judgment creditor’s attempt to go into execution triggered an initial interpleader action and subsequently this present one, and so this Court is enjoined to deal with this second and present interpleader application brought by the same claimant before this Court.
2. FACTS PRECEDING THE PRESENT INTERPLEADER APPLICATION[c] From the proceedings on record, it is obvious that after the Plaintiff/judgment creditor had obtained judgment, he attached a cold store situate at Tema said to belong to the Defendants; and that is the genesis of the entire interpleader proceedings before this Court.
It was then that the Claimant herein sought to intervene in the matter by filing a notice of claim and commencing an interpleader action.
The Claimant subsequently filed an interpleader summons and an affidavit of interest; but the Claimant’s interpleader application was dismissed by this Court, albeit differently constituted, in a ruling dated the 16th of November 2006. [d] Then on the 21st of November 2006, the Claimant herein, said to be dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court dismissing his interpleader action, filed a motion for stay of execution pending appeal, on the following grounds, among others, and I quote paragraphs 4 to 8 of the Claimant’s supporting affidavit thus: 4. That my appeal has a reasonable chance of success.
5. That the facts of the matter were hotly in dispute and ought to have been tried and not dealt with summarily.
6. That my appeal will be rendered nugatory in the absence of a stay due to the irrecoverability (sic) of the subject-matter viz Fishing Harbour Cold Store after it had been auctioned.
7. That a refusal of a stay of execution would impose irreparable harm in the event of my appeal succeeding: I would have lost a valuable investment and the entire business with numerous clients would have been lost: that I cannot recoup my loses.
8. That it would constitute to (sic) a travesty of justice if the judgment creditor were to go into execution and sell the cold store and take the proceeds of sale out of the country with no prospect of rec