MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BENIN, JSC
Areas of Law
- Property Law
- Company Law
- Evidence Law
- Mortgage Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Anator companies' claim of interest in properties attached in execution of a judgment is examined. The court rejects the objection by the judgment creditor and finds that the judgment debtor owns properties numbered 260 and 267 at Trassaco Valley, as well as house number 327/7, Kpehe, Accra. The mortgage deed is rejected as ineffectual. The movable assets are owned by the companies, and there has been no valid transfer of shares in Anator Holding Company Limited to Anator Holding LLC.
RULING
BENIN, JSC:- BENIN, JSC:- The facts of this application are quite straightforward. The Anator Holding Company Limited and its subsidiary Anator Quarry Company Limited, called the Companies or 2nd Claimants, as the case may be, put in a claim of interest in respect of certain properties which have been attached in execution of a judgment rendered by this court in July 2014 in Suit number J7/10/2014 reported as Amidu (No. 3) v. Attorney-General; Waterville Holdings (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No. 2) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 606. Their claim is also founded on a claim of interest by the UT Bank in some of the assets, which claim is also before this court in post-judgment proceedings arising from the action cited above. The execution is at the instance of the 1st defendant, described as the judgment creditor, who is the beneficiary of the judgment given in favour of the plaintiff in the said suit. The 2nd Claimants assert that the buildings attached in execution are owned by their Executive Chairman, Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome, the 3rd Defendant, who is the judgment debtor. They also claim that the movable assets comprising Plant and Machinery of the quarry situate at Mafi Tswala in the Adidome District of the Volta Region are owned by them and not the judgment debtor. They proceeded to claim that these assets, movable as well as immovable, were used as collateral to secure a loan facility from the UT Bank. They served copy of the notice of the claim on the UT Bank, describing the Bank as the 1st claimant, whilst they are the 2nd Claimants.
In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit, deposed to by Mr. Siade Puplampu, and filed on 14th December 2018, the real reason for the claim was stated that those properties are subject of collateral security for loans contracted by the companies with the UT Bank and “until such liabilities are discharged those assets or collaterals remain encumbered.”
I must state from the onset that the said Siade Puplampu deposed to four separate affidavits in this matter on behalf of the companies. In all four affidavits he deposed that he has “the authority of the Board of Directors of Anator Holding Company Limited and Anator Quarry Company Limited, Joint Claimants herein” to depose to each affidavit. He described himself as the Administrative Officer of the Companies. These affidavits are:
(1) Affidavit of interest of the Companies, filed on 22nd November 2018.
(2) Supplementary affidavit of interest of the Companies, filed on 14th D