Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
January 22, 2026
HIGH COURT, COMMERCIAL DIVISION
GHANA
CORAM
This judgment is in respect of an interpleader proceedings brought pursuant to Order 44 Rule 12(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47 by the Claimant, who alleges ownership of certain industrial machines attached by the Bailiff of this Court in execution of the Consent Judgment.
The Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor disputes the claim and contends that the machines that have been attached belong to the Judgment Debtor and are properly under attachment.
I have carefully considered the respective Affidavits of Interest and Dispute as well as all attached Exhibits. In the view of the Court, there are no contentious questions of law and the facts are not in dispute. I will go ahead and summarily determine this issue between the Claimant and Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor in accordance with Order 48 Rule 8 of C.I. 47 which provides as follows;
Where the Claimants consent or any of them so requests, or where the question in issue between the parties is a question of law and the facts are not in dispute, the Court may summarily determine the questions in issue between the Claimants and make an Order accordingly on such terms as may be just.
The law on evidence requires that, a party on whom the burden of proof lies, is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility, short of which his claim may fail.
As such, the law is firmly established that, in interpleader proceedings, the burden of proof lies squarely on the Claimant to establish ownership of the attached properties or establish superior legal interest in the attached properties, as held in Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd [2010) SCGLR 73.
A Claimant is enjoined by law to show that, the properties levied upon, are not properties of the Judgment Debtor.
In proving his claim, the Claimant relies heavily on a number of receipts, Exhibits B series, to demonstrate to Court that, the attached machines were purchased by him and belong to him and not the Judgment Debtor. They were attached to the Affidavit of Interest as proof of purchase of the machines.
However, upon a careful examination of the receipts, the Court finds that the receipts suffer from some serious defects and inaccuracies.
For instance, there are no delivery notices, purchase invoices such as proforma invoices, inventory records, warrant documents or any other independent corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim apart from the receipts.
In calculating the
AI Generated Summary
This judgment stems from an interpleader proceeding initiated by a Claimant asserting ownership of industrial machines attached by the court Bailiff in execution of a Consent Judgment. The Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor opposed the claim, asserting the machines belonged to the Judgment Debtor. Relying on Order 48 Rule 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), the Commercial Court determined the matter summarily. The court evaluated the Claimant’s evidence, which consisted primarily of receipts (Exhibit B series). The court observed that the receipts were plagued by serious calculation inaccuracies and lacked corroboration by independent documents such as delivery or purchase invoices. Emphasizing the precedent in Ackah v. Pergah Transport Ltd, the court stated the burden of proof lies squarely on the Claimant. Due to the unreliability and self-serving nature of the receipts, the court concluded that the Claimant failed to discharge this burden of proof under Sections 11–14 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). Consequently, Her Ladyship Justice Mavis Akua Andoh dismissed the interpleader action, declared the attachment valid, ordered execution to proceed, and awarded costs of GH¢10,000.00 against the Claimant in favour of the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor.