2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court handled an interpleader case stemming from execution proceedings against Noble Dream Financial Services Ltd. The claimants asserted ownership of the disputed property, presenting evidence of inherited rights and agreements with various Noble Dream entities. The court affirmed the claimants' ownership but subjected it to the 35-year tenancy agreements with the Noble Dream entities. Execution could only proceed against Noble Dream Financial Services Ltds interest, not the interests of other Noble Dream entities. The court mandated a property valuation to determine the rent to be collected to satisfy the judgment debt.
JUDGMENT
The instant interpleader application was filed by three claimants under order 44 rule 12(1) of the High Court ( Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I. 47 which states:
A person who makes a claim to or in respect of a property taken or intended to be taken in execution under process of the court, or to the proceeds or value of any such property, shall give notice of the claim to the Registrar ...
How did this come about? Judgment was entered against Noble Dream Financial Services Ltd in favour of Harriet Osei Bempomaa by the Commercial Court, Kumasi. As execution creditor, she sought leave to go into execution and subsequently caused the subject matter of this suit, property numbered Plot 18 A Amakom Brampouso , Kumasi to be attached.
On 29/12/2014, Afia Achiaa, John Agyekum and Philip Adade Acheampong instructed their solicitors to file a notice of claim under Order 44 rule 12(1) of C.I. 47. Upon service of the said notice on the execution creditor, she in turn caused her solicitors to file a notice to dispute the claim on 12/12/2014. Thereafter, the Registrar of this court brought an application under Order 44 rule 12(4) of CI 47 for an order calling upon the claimants to prove their claims. Pursuant to an order granted by this court on 12/02/2015, the claimants and the execution creditor appeared in court for the determination of the claimants ownership of the said property. The court gave directions making the
Claimants, Plaintiffs, and the execution creditor, the defendant. By virtue of Order 32 rule 7A of C.I. 47 as amended by CI 87, the parties were ordered to file their witness statements.
This is a civil action and so the rules regarding proof in civil suits apply, i.e. prove by the preponderance of probabilities. From the facts of this case, the Plaintiffs bear the onus of proof of ownership, having asserted ownership to the property in issue. See Zambrama v Segbedzi (1991) 2 GLR 221 CA ; Adwubeng v Domfeh (1996-97) SCGLR 660; Takoradi Flour Mills v Samir Faris (2005-2006) SCGLR 883; Yaa Kwesi v Arhin Davis ( 2007-2008) SCGLR 580; and Continental Plastics v IMC Industries- Technik GMBH ( 2009) SCGLR 298 at 307.
The 1st Plaintiff gave evidence on her behalf and on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff , and the 3rd Plaintiff also testified. All the evidence given by the Plaintiffs fall in line and it is as follows: The property in issue was first acquired by one Kwadwo Nsiah as per a lease exhibited to the application. After his demise, Letters of