MR. KALUK BARAKAT VS MR. HANI MIKATI & 3 ORS
December 16, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH J. (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
December 16, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Her Ladyship Akua Sarpomaa Amoah, J., of the High Court considered an interlocutory motion seeking to restrain the 1st–3rd defendants from auctioning or selling the 4th defendant’s property to satisfy a debt owed by United Steel Company Limited to the 2nd defendant. The Plaintiff had earlier filed a writ on 3 March 2022 alleging that a 14 June 2018 mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in favor of the 2nd defendant over the 4th defendant’s property was unauthorized and void, and sought to set aside a prior High Court order of 22 December 2021 (Suit No CM/MISC/1008/2020) directing judicial sale. The Court found the application improperly sought to restrain enforcement of a coordinate court’s order and emphasized that claims to property seized in execution must proceed under Order 44 rule 12 of CI 47, not via an injunction under Order 25. It further held that any challenge to the earlier judgment must be brought before the issuing court. The application was dismissed, with costs of GH¢2,000 awarded to the Respondent.
The present application prays for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their agents, assigns etc and all persons claiming through them from auctioning and or selling the 4th Defendant’s property in satisfaction of the debt of United Steel Company Limited. The grounds in support of the Plaintiff/ Applicant’s (Plaintiff) prayer are set out in the Affidavit in support.
The facts leading to the Application are these. On the 3rd of March, 2022, the Plaintiff issued a writ praying inter alia for the following reliefs
A) Against the 1st Defendants as follows;
i) A declaration that the 1st Defendant breached the constitution of the 4th Defendant
ii) A declaration that the 1st Defendant breached his fiduciary duty to when he executed the mortgage dated 14th June, 2018 in favour of the 2nd Defendant
B) Against the 1st and 2nd Defendant
i) A declaration that the mortgage dated the 14th of June, 2018 is void and and/ or of no effect
ii) An order setting aside the order for judicial sale of the 4th Defendant’s property made by the High Court on the 22nd of December, 2021 ....
C) Against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants as follows;
i) A declaration that the public auction being undertaken by the 3rd Defendant is a nullity;
ii) Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants, their servants.... from auctioning the 4th Defendant’s property in satisfaction of United Steel Company’s debt owed to the 2nd Defendant.
Upon filing the said writ, the Plaintiff launched the instant application seeking an Order restraining the Defendants as prayed for on the face of the Motion paper.
Having listened to both Counsel and examined the respective affidavits, my opinion is as follows;
The fact that this Court is clothed with jurisdiction to grant an Interlocutory Injunction in all cases as long as it considers it just and equitable to do so is so hackneyed that I need not cite authorities to support same.
What seems fairly obvious however, is that what the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks to obtain by the present Application, is an Order restraining the Respondents from enforcing the judgment of this Court differently constituted. The grounds canvassed in support of this prayer may be summarized as follows;
1. That Property belonging to the 4th Defendant was mortgaged by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant as security for a loan facility taken by another company named United Steel Ltd
2. That the Mortgage Deed d