Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
1 Background
The suit is interpleader proceedings arising from an earlier suit Foshan Oceanland
Ceramics Co. Ltd v Edland Tech (Gh) Ltd before this court.1 The reliefs Plaintiff sought
in that suit were upheld. Seeking to execute the judgment against defendant
Edland Tech (Gh) Ltd, Plaintiff realised that the judgment debtor was no longer in
good business, as its offices has been taken over by tenants. Upon application, the
court, pursuant to the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) s.147 and 148(1)(a) pierced
and lifted the veil of the corporate personality of the defendant debtor, which
enabled the plaintiff to attach the directors of the judgment debtor company Edland
Tech (Gh) Ltd including Edward August Gbeblewu (EAG) personally with
liabilities and responsibilities of the defendant judgment debtor company, Edland
Tech (Gh) Ltd.
Upon discovery that Edward August Ggeblewu (EAG) a director of the judgment
debtor company Edland Tech (Gh) Ltd is the lessor of an ‘Unnumbered Commercial
Property and metal container Annex at Raymakosa Traffic Light, Ho’, the Plaintiff
sought to execute the judgment by attaching the said property that it believed to
be owned by EAG. It is the attachment of the property2 by the Deputy Sheriff that
prompted this suit. The Claimants herein, Patience Owusu Adjei and Shuab
Lawal, filed notices of claim averring that the property3 does not belong to the
judgment debtor EAG. Whilst the 1st Claimant claims ownership of the property,
the 2nd Claimant claims that he is a lessee whose interest is subsisting and thus
encumbers the attachment and any judicial sale that could arise therefrom.
Unable to summarily determine the issue of ownership of the property, the court
directed the parties to get the issue to be tried fully between the judgment creditor
and the Claimants as provided under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005
Order 48 Rule 8. The judgment creditor plaintiff chose to issue a fresh writ against
the Claimants, the Defendants herein who I shall conveniently refer to, still as the
Claimants.
2 Parties’ case
Plaintiff judgment creditor avers that the claim per the affidavit of interest filed by
the 1st Claimant was concocted and untruthful when she claimed that her mother’s
mother was Lucia Tolovi Adjei. According to the Plaintiff, Lucia Tolovi Adjei was
rather the 1st Claimant’s father’s mother and the name Adjei that is ascribed to
Lucia Tolovi Adjei, as well as 1st Claimant’s husband is only