JOHN ARHINFUL & ANOR v. PHILIP KPABITEY

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

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