ELECTROLAND GHANA LTD v. PAULINA ADOMAKO & ANOTHER
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
- Constitutional Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this judgment, the court examines whether a husband's property can be attached to satisfy a debt owed by his wife. The plaintiff contended that his property was acquired prior to his wife's business existence and should not be used to settle her debt. The court referred to constitutional provisions and previous case law, noting that property acquired solely by one spouse does not become liable for the debts of the other spouse and that the joint ownership presumption applies during divorce or dissolution of marriage. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the attached property.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Defendant (hereinafter called obtained called Execution Creditor/Defendant for the purposes of this interpleader suit) obtained judgment against Defendant/Judgment Debtor (hereinafter called the Judgment Debtor) on the 20th of December, 2017 for the recovery of an amount of Ghc1, 004,747.00 as monies owed by the Judgment Debtor for the supply of products to Judgment Debtor together with interest and cost. In its quest to execute the judgment and recover the monies, property H/No 04800375-10, NNK 04 Jamorky, Opposite Zion Prayer Centre, Ashaley Botwe Accra was attached. It is the attachment of this property that has precipitated the filing of notice of claim by Kingley Adomako, the Claimant/Plaintiff (hereinafter called the Claimant/Plaintiff).
When called upon by the court to file an affidavit of interest, the Plaintiff filed one and deposed among others, that the property attached is his bona fide property, in his sole name even though he admit that the Judgment Debtor is his wife. That he acquired the property long before the Judgment Debtor registered her business in July, 2009 under the business name and style Bigma Enterprise and that she is not part of his wife’s business and neither was he part of the suit that resulted in the judgment against the Judgment Debtor and hence claim that his house cannot be used to defray the debt simply because he is the husband of the Judgment Debtor.
When the matter came before the court for a determination in accordance with Order 44 Rule 13 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 which states as follows:
13. (1) Where on the hearing of proceedings pursuant to an order made under rule 12(4) all the persons by whom adverse claims to the property in dispute, in this rule referred to as "the claimants" appear, the Court may
(a) summarily determine the question in issue between the claimants and execution creditor and make an order accordingly on such terms as may be just; or
(b) order that any issue between the claimants and the execution creditor be stated and tried and may direct which of them is to be plaintiff and which defendant”.
Judging from the nature of the Affidavit of Interest deposed to by the Claimant/Plaintiff the court in exercise of its functions for the determination of the dispute in a summary manner took viva voce evidence from the Claimant/Plaintiff and ordered the lawyers to file written submissions and address the court in respect of the fol