NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES v. AHAMAN ENTERPRISE LIMITED & ANOTHER
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- YEBOAH, CJ (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- GBADEGBE, JSC
- AMEGATCHER, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a post-judgment execution dispute arising from the Supreme Courts 28 November 2014 judgment, the execution-debtor applicant asked the Supreme Court, exercising inherent jurisdiction, to determine whether continued execution by the execution-creditor respondent was lawful because the debt was satisfied. The Court appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) as referee under Order 28 to examine accounts. PWC produced scenarios; the Court, relying on Order 28 rule 4(3)(e), decided the question itself. Despite denying liability, the applicants 9 July 2019 affidavit admitted an outstanding GH 914,699.74. The respondent alleged GH 56,745.80 but offered no proof and merely repeated assertions in cross-examination. Invoking the Evidence Act burdens, the Court held only the admitted sum remained due, awarded statutory interest under C.I. 52 rule 4(1), and cautioned that demands for unascertained payments required a consequential order under Order 43 rule 10 after the Ministry of Energy failed to render ordered accounts, although payments already made would not be undone.
GBADEGBE JSC:-
This matter comes before us in the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction at the instance of the execution- debtor-applicant (hereinafter described as the applicant) who alleges that it has fully paid up its indebtedness under the process of execution issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated November 28, 2014 and accordingly further processes directed at execution by the execution-creditor -respondent (hereinafter described as the respondent) are wrongful. Initially, when the application came before us, we were of the view that it was unusual, but after giving anxious consideration to the question raised for our decision whether the continuous levying of execution under the judgment of the Court is lawful, we came to the opinion that it properly arises within the inherent jurisdiction of the court-that which enables the court to fulfil itself properly by doing justice between the parties in so far as what is sought from it has not been expressly taken away by statute. Summing up the nature of the inherent jurisdiction, the learned authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, volume 37 write at paragraph 14 of page 23 as follows:
“In sum, it may be said that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is a virile and viable doctrine and has been defined as being the reserve or fund of powers, a residual source of powers, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.”
The application having been fully heard subsequent to which the parties submitted their closing arguments on July 15, 2020, we now direct our attention to the determination of the question whether indeed, the applicant has fully satisfied the judgment debt under the judgment of this Court dated November 28, 2014.
Such was the disputation concerning the total amount owed under the judgment that on 27 the March 2019, we directed that accounts be inquired into between the parties. In making the order appointing a referee, we adopted the prevailing practice in the jurisdiction as set out in Order 28 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47. The referee, who was appointed by consent of the parties was to ascertain whether the exact amount owing by the respondent under the judgment of the court dated November 28, 2014 has been fully paid. Whiles the applicant contended that there was no amount owing from it to the respondent unde