NANA APPENTENG AFRAMPONG & ANOTHER v. THE DEPUTY SHERIFF & OTHERS

AYEBI J.A.

In this judgment the plaintiffs/appellants will be referred to as 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, and defendants/respondents will also be referred to as 1st defendant, 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant and 4th defendant simply.

The 1st plaintiff is the managing director of the 2nd plaintiff. In the suit instituled Honish GMBH per its lawful attorney Mohammed B. Sahnoon vrs Krah Brothers & Nana Appenteng Aframpong, the Sekondi High Court on 31st July 2002, gave judgment in favour of the 4th defendant herein against the plaintiffs herein for the sum of ¢454,559,500.00 with interest.

On or about 15th April 2004, H/No. M 21, Effia-Kuma New-Site, Takoradi, the property of the 1st plaintiff herein was attached by a writ of fi:fa issued by the Deputy Sheriff, the 1st defendant. Thereafter various notices were put up for the sale of the house by auction. The sale had to be postponed due to various applications filed by the plaintiffs herein.

By subsequent auction notice published on the notice board of the High Court and the property attached, the sale was schedule for 15th September 2005 at 2.00pm. However on 14th September 2005, another notice was placed in the Ghanaian Times fixing the time of the auction at 11.00am on the same 15/09/2005.

Indeed the sale took place at 11.00am on the said 15/09/2005 at premises of the attached property. The 3rd defendant’s bid of ¢966million presumably the highest was accepted by the auctioneer, the 2nd defendant’s managing partner. On 12th October 2005, the 1st defendant (the Deputy Sheriff) issued the 3rd defendant, the purchaser of the house a Certificate of Purchase.

The plaintiffs pleaded on their statement of claim that the conduct of the sale at 11.00am instead of 2.00pm defeated the mischief which PNDC law 230 was intended to cure; having regard to the time and manner of sale, the sale was tainted with irregularity and by knocking down the property at a price of ¢966million to the 3rd defendant, fraud has been perpetrated on the public and therefore the sale ought to be set aside on grounds of nullity.

The plaintiffs thus claimed against the defendants the following reliefs:

(i) An order setting aside the sale of the 1st plaintiff’s attached property, H/No. M 21 Effia-Kuma New-Site, Takoradi by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant on grounds of fraud and deceit.

(ii) An order that the 4th defendant pays all monies received from the fraudulent sale into court pending the determination of the suit.

(iii) An orde