K79 FARMS LIMITED VS UNISECURITIES (GH) LTD
November 16, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH J. (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
November 16, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Churchill/Marky’s Ghana Limited applied in the High Court to set aside an Entry of Consent Judgment filed by the Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor. The Respondent had sued Unisecurities (Gh) Ltd and, following Terms of Settlement adopted as a consent judgment, Churchill/Marky’s was to assign a parcel of land with an uncompleted building to the Respondent, with legal interest originally registered in favour of Ivor Agyemang Duah to be registered for the Respondent or a purchaser. The Entry of Consent Judgment sought execution for reliefs beyond the consent judgment: lawyer’s fees and interest calculated beyond the agreed period. The court held there was no agreement for lawyer’s fees in the consent judgment and that the parties’ dispute over interest hinged on interpreting Paragraph 12 regarding completion of the property assignment—an issue not suited for determination within this application. The court noted a usual default clause, citing Fiankuma v Cobbina, and ultimately set aside the Entry with no order as to costs.
The instant Application filed by Churchill/Marky’s Ghana Limited (Applicant) seeks an order of this Court setting aside the Entry of Consent Judgment dated the 4th of February 2022 and filed by the Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor (Respondent).
The Applicant’s case is that by the said Entry of Judgment attached to its Motion as Exhibit MBC 2 the Respondent seeks to levy execution for certain reliefs that are not contained in the said Consent Judgement. The impugned reliefs may be summarized as follows:
1. A demand for the payment of Respondent’s Lawyer’s fees when the same was not provided for in the Consent judgement.
2. Calculation of interest on the principal amount beyond the period agreed upon by the Parties.
To better appreciate the contentions of the parties, I think a brief background to the present dispute will be apposite.
By a writ dated the 10th of August 2018, the Respondent commenced an action against the Defendant/Judgment-Debtor (Defendant) herein, Unisecurities (Gh) Ltd.
The Parties subsequently resolved their dispute amicably after which they entered into Terms of Settlement filed on the 21st of May, 2019 (Applicant’s Exhibit MBC). The terms were adopted as Consent Judgement by this Court on the 18th of June, 2019 (Respondent’s Exhibit MKA 2)
By the said Consent Judgement, the Defendant was required to make certain payments in settlement of its indebtedness to Plaintiff. It was at this stage that the Applicant joined the fray.
Now, the Applicant who was then indebted to the Defendant was to “use” a parcel of land with an uncompleted building (The Property) to settle its indebtedness to the Defendant. This was to be done by assigning the property to Respondent. Thus, the assignment of the Property to the Respondent was to serve a dual purpose. First it was to settle Applicant’s indebtedness to Defendant and possibly the Defendant’s indebtedness to the Respondent (depending on the amount realized from the sale of the Property)
The legal interest in the Property which had been registered in favour of one Ivor Agyemang Duah was also to be registered in favour of the Respondent or directly in the name of “any purchaser” of the said Property. I must note that the Exhibit MKA 2 does not specify who should bear the cost and responsibility of the said registration.
Another relevant term within the context of the instant application was the stipulation that the Principal amount of Two Million Nine Hundred and Thirty-Five Thousand Four Hundre