MYTIME REALTY ESTATE VS MENDA DEV’T CONST. LTD. & ORS
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATRICIA QUANSAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor attempted to attach properties claimed by the Defendants/Judgment Debtors after obtaining a judgment. Various claimants opposed the attachment, asserting their ownership. The court found in favor of the claimants based on submitted affidavits and pending litigation, releasing the properties from attachment and dismissing a notice of claim unsupported by an affidavit of interest. Costs were awarded against the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor.
RULING ON AN INTERPLEADER APPLICATION
1. INTRODUCTION[i] ORDER 48 OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2004, CI 47 on INTERPLEADER provides: Rule 1 — Entitlement to Relief by way of Interpleader A person may apply to the Court for relief by way of interpleader where(a) the person seeking relief, in this Order referred to as "the applicant" is under liability for any debt, money or goods for or in respect of which the person is or expects to be sued by two or more parties in this order referred to as "the claimants" making adverse titles thereto; or(b) the person seeking relief is a Registrar or other officer of the Court charged with the execution of process by or under the authority of the Court, and a claim is made to any property movable or immovable taken or intended to be taken in execution under any process or to the proceeds or value of any of the property by any claimant other than the person against whom the process is issued.
Rule 2 — Mode of Application(1) An application for relief under this Order shall be made by motion with notice to the claimants.
Rule 8 — Disposal in Summary Manner Where the claimants consent or any of them so requests, or where the question in issue between the parties is a question of law and the facts are not in dispute, the Court may summarily determine the questions in issue between the claimants and make an order accordingly on such terms as may be just. In the case of Karam v. A. G. Leventis & Co. , Ltd. [1965] GLR 96, the Court, relying on order 48 rule 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47 (as cited above) reiterated thus: Where the only issues before the court were purely questions of law, the judge did not err when he exercised his discretion to try the interpleader summarily and not by a case stated. [ii] In the present case, the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor herein instituted an action against the Defendants and obtained judgment.
It was in seeking to go into execution that some properties said to belong to the Defendants/Judgment Debtors named above were attached in fulfillment of the execution process.
2. FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S CASE [iii] From the proceedings so far filed before this Court, it is obvious that the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor herein attached property described as ‘