JOHN ARHINFUL & ANOR v. PHILIP KPABITEY
January 30, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LAND DIVISION)
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE EMMANUEL AMO YARTEY J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
January 30, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (LAND DIVISION)
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
This case involves a post judgment litigation of interpleader claim. On the 29th day of November, 2017, judgment was entered in favour of the Defendant/Judgment-Creditor.
1.1 Subsequently, the Defendant/Respondent filed an Entry of Judgment and commenced the execution process to enable him enjoy the fruits of his judgment. He thereafter filed notice of the record of Proceedings and caused same to be served on all the occupants on the disputed subject-land on 6th June, 2018.
1.2 On 26th February, 2019, the court ordered for a writ of possession to issue and consequently, the Registrar sealed the writ on 16th May, 2019. Per their respective notice of claim, the Claimants are laying claim to the disputed subject land. These claims were disputed by the Respondent and when issues were joined, the instant proceedings commenced.
1.3 Being an interpleader claim the purpose of this trial is to determine whether the attached property wholly belongs to the defendant or the claimants. In the case of REPUBLIC V. HIGH COURT ACCRA EX-PARTE ANYAN PLATINUM HOLDINGS, INTERESTED PARTY [2009] SCGLR 225, the Supreme Court held:
A Sheriff’s interpleader would arise when the Sheriff has seized or intended to seize goods by way of execution and a person (other than the Judgment Debtor) has made a claim to the goods taken or intended to be taken in execution. In that regard, the proceedings initiated by the Sheriff would determine whether the property belongs to the Judgment Debtor (and can therefore be seized) or to the Claimant.
In this action the subject matter is a landed property.
See also SALAMI V. SHARANI [1973] 2GLR 364
1.4 The claimants assume the initial legal burden of proof and there cannot be any question about that since the claimants have introduced an issue of proof which is essential to the case they are making. The learned Authors of Halsbury Laws of England Vol. 17 of 2nd Edition paragraph 14 have stated of the incident of the legal burden as follows:
The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the Court to take action, thus a Claimant must satisfy the tribunal that the conditions which entitles him to an award have been satisfied. In respect of particular allegations, the burden lies upon the party for whom the substantiation of the particular allegation is an essential of his case.
1.5 Certainly, this passage sums up the position of our law under **sections 11(4), 1
AI Generated Summary
This High Court decision resolves a post-judgment Sheriffs interpleader concerning residential properties at Oyarifa, Accra. After winning HFC Banks Homesave promotion, the 1st and 2nd Claimants received two-bedroom houses and took possession under deeds of assignment from Angello Ronald Adukure (2011/2012). Philip Kpabitey Therson-Cofie, the Defendant/Judgment-Creditor, had earlier obtained a 29 November 2017 judgment against Kumsark Estates Ltd and moved in execution, serving notices in June 2018 and obtaining a writ of possession in early 2019. The court reiterated interpleader and land-title principles, ordered a composite plan, and received expert evidence from the Lands Commission. The expert testified that the claimants site plans overlap the defendants certificate plan by only five feet. Applying the standards on burden of proof, identity of land, and the limited weight of expert evidence, the court confined the defendants interest to a five-foot strip and discharged the claimants lands from execution save for that overlap, directing a survey to carve out the five feet.