MASS PROJECTS LIMITED v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANOTHER

RULING

J. DOTSE JSC

This an application at the instance of Mass Projects Limited the Defendant’s/Appellant’s/Applicant’s hereinafter referred to as Applicant’s praying for a review of a ruling delivered by a single Judge of this Court dated 22/08/2013 which refused an application for Stay of Execution pending appeal of a High Court ruling dated 22nd May 2013.

It is provided under article 134 (b) of the Constitution, 1992 that a single Judge of the Supreme Court may exercise power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision of the cause or matter before the Supreme Court except that

(b) “ in civil matters, any order, direction or decision made or given under this article may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court, constituted by three Justices of the Supreme Court.”

This panel of three Justices has therefore been constituted pursuant to article 134(b) of the Constitution 1992 to hear and determine the review application that the Applicants have filed to vary, discharge and or reverse the order or decision rendered by the single Judge on 22nd August, 2013.

FACTS

Standard Chartered Bank, Plaintiff’s/ 1st Respondent’s /Respondent’s, hereinafter referred to as the 1st Respondent’s, obtained judgment against the Applicants in 2007 and subsequently filed an application for Fi:Fa against the immovable properties of the Applicant’s consisting of office complex, warehouse and stores at sector 17, Kasoa, near Accra on the Winneba main road and subsequently attached same. On 24/10/2012, the Applicant’s property was auctioned after a notice of public auction has been posted. Yoo Mart Limited, the Execution Purchaser/2nd Respondent, hereafter referred to as the Purchaser’s was the entity that purchased the Applicant’s properties which were auctioned at the public auction.

It is perhaps necessary at this stage to take note of the following procedural steps in the case. On the 12th of November 2012 the Applicant’s filed a motion on notice to set aside the auction sale and this was fixed for hearing on Friday 23rd November 2012.

In the meantime, the Deputy Sheriff issued a certificate of purchase to the Purchaser’s, on 16th November 2012 four clear days after he had been put on notice that the Applicants had initiated steps to challenge the auction sale.

There clearly was an indecent haste on the part of the Registrar to validate the auction sale and thereby threw caution to the winds.

The Applicant’s also filed a writ of summons on 7t