2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A Ghanaian company supplied electrical goods on credit to the proprietress of Bigma Enterprise, producing an unpaid debt of GH¢1,004,747.70. The High Court granted summary judgment for the creditor, including interest from 1 January 2014 at the commercial bank rate and costs of 7%, and execution issued. During execution, the Deputy Sheriff seized a house at Ashaley Botwe. Kingsley Adomako, the debtor’s husband, claimed sole ownership, with a land certificate and evidence of acquisition in 2000, and maintained he was not party to the underlying suit. The High Court posed whether the wife had any interest and whether such interest could be attached; it held the property was solely the husband’s and released it. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, per Senyo Dzamefe JA with Agbevor JA and Dodoo JA concurring, reaffirmed Article 18’s protection of sole ownership and Article 22(3)’s equitable distribution upon divorce, rejected automatic joint ownership of all assets acquired during marriage, and dismissed the appeal.
DZAMEFE, JA
The plaintiff/appellant issued this writ of summons against the defendant/respondent for the following claims; -
a. An order for the payment of the amount of Gh¢1,004,747.70 being the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff for the supply of products to the defendant by the plaintiff.
b. An order for the payment of interest on the said amount at the Commercial Bank lending rate from the 1st of January, 2014 until date of final payment.
c. Cost
In his statement of claim, the plaintiff averred that they are a limited liability company registered under the laws of the Republic Ghana and authorized to engage in wholesale and retail of electrical appliances, telephones and accessories.
The defendant is the proprietress of Bigma Enterprise and at all material times dealt with the plaintiff company for the sale and purchase of electrical appliances on credit. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant, on demand, was supplied electrical appliances on credit terms from which she was to pay within three (3) months from the date of supply. As at 31st December 2013, the plaintiff has supplied products worth Gh¢1,004,747.70 to the defendant.
The plaintiff states that despite several attempts to get the defendant to pay she failed or refused to do so. By a letter dated 28th March 2017, the defendant admitted her indebtedness to the plaintiff to the tune of Gh¢1,004,747.70. The defendant in that same letter offered to pay the debt on instalments of Gh¢20,000 per month commencing from May 2017. Defendant has however refused to redeem her promise of paying back the debt and not responded to letters sent to her by their solicitors. Defendants conduct is affecting the plaintiff’s operations and capital hence this suit for the courts to compel her to pay.
The defendant in her defence admitted that though the plaintiff’s had supplied goods to her on credit, the figure quoted by plaintiff as her debt is not wholly correct and that they have to go into accounts to confirm same. She said though it is true she promised to pay the debt on installments of G¢20,000 per month she could not do so because of some unforeseen circumstances that obstructed the promise. She said the plaintiff is aware that her main customer, the National Service Secretariat, had some crises that culminated in the withdrawal of funds to it and they could not pay their creditors including her. That adversely affected the operations of the defendant and the plaintiff is aware of that a