NICOLA PALLADINO v. THE NATIONAL SECURITY COORDINATOR & MINISTER OF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY GENERAL
2012
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DENNIS ADJEI, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2012
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Dennis Adjei, J.A., addressed an interim application for preservation concerning a 2008 KIA Ceed. The plaintiff had bought the car for GH¢33,000.00 and placed it with an authorized agent to sell. The 1st defendant, National Security, seized the vehicle after a prospective buyer made part payment while the car was with the agent, keeping it pending refund. The defendants filed no pleadings or affidavit in opposition. Applying Order 25 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), and assessing balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm, the court found the plaintiff held a right in law and equity requiring protection. The court ordered delivery of the vehicle to the Registrar within ten days for preservation, with storage at a garage at the joint cost of both parties until review or final determination, referring to National Lottery Authority v Airtel Gh. and Owusu v Owusu Ansah.
DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.:
The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant claiming inter alia,
a. Damages for conversion
b. An order for delivery up of the vehicle or its value namely GH¢33,000.00 and damages for its conversion; alternatively damages.
The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiff acquired brand new 2008 KIA Ceed Vehicle at the cost of GH¢33,000.00. The plaintiff gave it to a friend to sell for him and the vehicle was seized by the 1st defendant, the National security. According to the plaintiff, his enquiry revealed that the National Security has seized the vehicle because one man made a part payment for the purchase of the vehicle when the vehicle was in the custody of the agent authorized by the plaintiff to sell it, and therefore, the National Security was keeping the vehicle until the part payment made by the said person is refunded to him.
The writ of Summons and the statement of claim and the application were served on the defendants on 4th January 2012.
Order 25(2) of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules 2004, C.I. 47 regulates preservation of property as in the instant case.
Order 25 Rule 2 provides thus:
“1. On the application of any party to a cause or matter the Court may make an order for the detention, custody or preservation of any property which is the subject matter of the cause or matter or in respect of which any question may arise in the action, or may order the inspection of any such property in the possession of a party.
2. To enable an order under subrule (1) to be carried out the Court may by the order authorize any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party to the cause or matter.
3. Where the right of a party to a specific fund is disputed, the Court may, on the application of a party to the cause or matter, order the fund to be paid into court or otherwise secured.
4. An order under this rule may be made on such terms as the Court considers just.
5. Unless the Court otherwise directs, a defendant may not apply for such an order before the defendant files appearance”.
In such applications, the Court is to consider the pleadings and the affidavits and satisfy itself that the applicant has a right either in law or equity and the right should be protected by the court. Furthermore, looking at the balance of convenience it would be fair just and convenient to protect the right.
See the cases of National Lottery Authority vs. Airtel Gh. and Another [2011] 36