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
- Equity and Trusts
- Corporate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana High Court, Justice Janapare A. Bartels-Kodwo considered an interlocutory motion by the applicant company seeking preservation of four corporate vehicles—a KIA Cerato, KIA Sorento, Land Rover Freelander and Ford Explorer—under Order 25 Rule 2(1) of C.I. 47. The vehicles were in the hands of former executives and shareholders who claimed an equitable and legal lien for monies allegedly owed and emphasized their safe, professional maintenance. The applicant denied any lien or working agreement, relying on DVLA ownership documents. Applying the principles in General Development Co. v Rad Forest Products, the court found no evidence that the vehicles were at risk of being run down and noted that preservation, retention and detention were substantive reliefs in the pending suit. Mindful not to overreach the merits, and considering Order 25 Rule 6, the court maintained the status quo, declined preservation, directed an early trial, and awarded GH¢2,000 costs against the applicant.
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