K79 FARMS LIMITED VS UNISECURITIES (GH) LIMITE

Introduction

The present Application seeks leave of this Court to levy execution against the Interested Party in respect of the Consent Judgement of this Court dated the 18th of June, 2019.

Background

On the 18th of June, 2019, this Court adopted as Consent Judgement, Terms of settlement entered into between the Plaintiff/Applicant (Plaintiff), the Defendant and the Interested Party/Respondent (Respondent) on the 21st of May, 2019.

Salient among the terms adopted as Consent Judgement were the following;

1. The Interested Party, Marky’s Ghana Ltd, which was indebted to the Defendant / Judgment Debtor was by paragraph 5 required and agreed to “use” a parcel of land with an uncompleted building thereon to defray Defendant’s indebtedness to Plaintiff.

2. The Interested Party was further required by paragraph 6 of the said Terms to complete construction of the said property by 30th of June, 2019 for the same to be valued by a Chartered Real Estate Valuer to ascertain its worth upon completion.

3. The property, by paragraph 8, was also to be sold through the joint efforts of the parties and the proceeds paid directly by the Purchaser to the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 9 of the said Terms also provided that the proceeds of sale of the said property was to be used to defray the indebtedness of the Interested party to the Defendant and in turn the Defendants / Judgement Debtor’s indebtedness to the Plaintiff.

5. The parties also agreed that no conveyance or transfer of the property would be made without recourse to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Case

The case of the Plaintiff is that the Interested Party has breached and continues to breach the said Terms, hence its prayer for leave to levy execution against the said Party on the strength of the “usual default clause” contained in Paragraph 15 of the Terms.

The breaches complained of include;

a) The failure by the Interested Party to complete construction of the

Property by the 30th of June, 2019 as agreed.

b) Purporting to sell the completed property without Plaintiff’s knowledge or authorization even though the Property had been assigned to Plaintiff by the Interested Party.

c) Keeping the proceeds of the purported sale and unilaterally choosing to pay same to Plaintiff in “bits and pieces” and at the convenience of Interested Party.

d) Failure to complete the transfer of the property to the Plaintiff at the Lands Commission after assigning same to Plaintiff in August 2019.

Interested Party’s case

The