GEROMINO DATA SYSTEMS AFRICA LIMITED VS HUSSAM OCKAILI & ANOR
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE MRS. JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a dispute over the preservation of four vehicles in the custody of the Defendants. The Plaintiff sought an order for preservation, claiming the vehicles were corporate assets, while the Defendants asserted a lien for unpaid monies. The court, applying the principles of balance of convenience and hardship, declined to grant the preservation order. It found that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated that the vehicles were at risk of being run down, and granting the order might prejudice the outcome of the substantive case. The court ordered the status quo to be maintained and directed the parties to proceed to an early trial. The decision highlights the careful consideration required in preservation orders, balancing the rights and potential hardships of both parties.
By a motion on notice filed on 17th January, 2017 for an order for preservation pursuant to Order 25 Rule 2 (1) of C. I. 47 the Plaintiff/Applicant prays this court to preserve the following vehicles currently in the custody of the Defendants under the supervision of the Registrar of the Court until the final determination of this suit.
The vehicles are a KIA Cerato Saloon with Registration number GT7018-15, KIA Sorento Station Wagon with Registration number GM3505-12, Land Rover Freelander with registration number GS5492-10 and Ford Explorer with registration number GW4488-Z. It is one of the reliefs Plaintiff claims that an order be directed at the Defendants to return these vehicles as set out in their amended claim or alternatively if they have been sold the Defendants are to account for the proceeds of sale.
In its affidavit in support of this application the Applicant denies the claim by the Defendants that they are keeping these vehicles in exercise of a “legal and or equitable Lien”. They also deny the claim that the Defendants were to keep the vehicles by “a working agreement” “as shareholders pending the settlement of all monies due them”. Plaintiff denies owing the Defendants and asserts that the vehicles are corporate assets for the use of Management in discharge of their functions as staff.
Therefore the Defendants no longer staff of the Plaintiff and with no policy in place which allow staff that have resigned to continue to keep staff assets it prays the court for this order of preservation.
In support of its assertion that the vehicles are corporate property the Applicant has attached Exhibits the Transfer of Ownership letters as well as the DVLA forms in respect of the four vehicles as Exhibits ‘A’through to ‘H’. It is their prayer that the vehicles are preserved in the Cantonments residence of the 1st Defendant to the counterclaim where there is ample space and security as well as the being the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company.
In the written submission submitted on behalf of the Applicant learned Counsel relied on the case of GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED VRS RAD FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED [1999-2000] 2 GLR 178 CA where Benin JA as he then was at pages 182 and 183 laid down the factors to be considered in making an order for preservation or detention of property.
For the order to be made there must be a pending dispute over the ownership of the property in dispute, necessitating a need to preserve it pending t