GUARANTY TRUST BANK v. STEEL & FORGING LTD. & 4 OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL SAU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- KORBIE, J. A.
- TORKORNOO, J. A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Equity and Trusts
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant sued the respondents for payment of outstanding debts and obtained a summary judgment. The respondents defaulted on repayment schedules, leading the appellant to auction the attached properties. The respondents challenged the auction, alleging deceit during settlement negotiations. The High Court set aside the auction for being fraudulent, but the appellate court overturned this decision, stating there was no binding settlement agreement and the auction process followed legal protocols. The dissenting judge argued the appellant should be estopped by conduct from auctioning properties during negotiations.
TORKORNOO, J. A:
The plaintiff/judgment creditor/respondent/appellant (hereinafter called appellant) sued the defendant/judgment debtors/applicants/respondents (respondents) for the due payments of both cedi and dollar denominated loans. Summary Judgment was granted against the respondents for all reliefs sought on 19th December 2012. This can be found on page 169 of the Record of Appeal (ROA). The judgment hasn’t been appealed.
The respondents thereafter applied to pay the judgment debt in installments. Their proposals were accepted, and entered by the court. See pages 178 and 179 of the ROA. By this order, the respondents were to pay the judgment debt at the rate of
1.5 million GHC and 300,000 US$ on or before 15th February 2013 and the remainder of the debt in six equal monthly installments.
Significantly, the respondents abandoned this order they had obtained and did not honor the payments as scheduled such that the appellant commenced execution of the judgment debt. The appellant ensured that the entry of judgment was served on the respondents, and commenced FiFA proceedings attaching three landed properties and all movables of the judgment debtor. It also applied for reserved price of the attached properties.
When respondents opposed the valuation reports on the attached property, the court ordered an independent valuation on 12th July 2013 for some of the properties and ordered the continuation of execution of the remaining properties. See page 274 of the ROA. On 7th August, 2013, the respondents again abandoned the re-valuation order they had obtained and the court entered the reserved price for all the attached properties and ordered execution to continue for all the attached properties. See pages 277 and 278 of the ROA.
The appellant continued diligently with execution processes, all to the knowledge of respondents. See pages 181 to 273 of the ROA.
The auction which led to this appeal was duly advertised on 9th September for 30th September (page 308 of the ROA) and conducted on the advertised 30th September. During this period, the records show that the respondents started to pay the judgment debt through post dated cheques and each payment was accepted by the bank – as is their right.
On Pages 320 -334 of the ROA, one finds the respondents’ first application to set aside the auction sale. This was filed on 30th October 2013. It was filed by one Randall Obeng Sakyi. It would seem that this application was abandoned because there is no rec