Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC:
The designation of the parties at the trial court will be maintained in this appeal. The
plaintiffs obtained a summary judgment against the defendant at the high court in this
suit on 20th December 2017. The court delivered itself in part as follows:
“I will accordingly grant the application for summary judgment and further grant leave
for the plaintiff to recover the GHc 1,004,747.70 together with interest at the
commercial bank rate from January 2014 till date of final payment”
The court also assessed costs at 7% of the above sum.
The matter before us was activated by the attempt by the plaintiffs to execute the
judgment by attempting to attach House No 04800375- 10 NNK 04, Ashalley Botwe in
satisfaction of the judgment obtained.
One Kingsley Adomako (claimant) the husband of the Defendant, filed a notice of claim
to the property in question. The plaintiffs in reaction filed a notice of dispute after which
the claimant also filed an affidavit of interest.
The court ordered both the plaintiffs and the claimant to appear before it. After
conducting a hearing into the matter, the high court made two findings to the effect
that the property in question was solely owned by the claimant and also that until there
is a divorce the property of a husband cannot be attached for the debt of his wife.
Consequently the court ordered that the property in question be released from
attachment.
Being dissatisfied with this judgment the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the court of appeal
which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the high court.
Still dissatisfied the plaintiffs further appeal to this court on a first ground that the
judgment is against the weight of evidence.
By this ground they take on the onerous burden of attempting to set aside concurrent
findings of fact made by the two lower courts. It is trite that to do this, they must
demonstrate clearly that the judgments of these courts are wrong on the facts or law
because
“(a) the court has taken into account matters which were irrelevant in law, (b) the court
excluded matters which were critically necessary for consideration, (c) the court has
come to a conclusion which no court properly instructing itself would have reached and
(d) the court’s findings were not proper inferences drawn from the facts”
Amoah v Lokko & Alfred Quartey etc [2011] 1 SCGLR 505.
See also Achoro v Akanfela [1996-97] SCGLR and Koglex Ltd (No 2) v Field
SCGLR 175.