Nii Kojo Danso II and Nii Kojo Ababio v. The Executive Secretary, Lands Commission and 2 Ors
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE MRS. ELIZABETH ANKUMAH (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiffs sought a Certificate of Judgment under section 15(1) of the State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555) to facilitate payment of GH57,333,900.00 plus accrued interest arising from an unsatisfied High Court judgment dated 13 April 2005 (Justice Kofi Akwaah). A prior certificate order in 2008 led to a GH100,000 part payment in 2009; the original plaintiff, Nii Kojo Danso, died and was substituted, and Nii Kojo Ababio, the James Town chief, joined as second plaintiff. The Attorney-General and State defendants opposed, citing conflicting claimants and earlier Court of Appeal rulings favouring the Sempe Stool, and raised limitation under section 4 of Act 125. Plaintiffs argued that without a pending appeal or stay, the State cannot impede execution. The Court agreed, emphasizing the binding 1990 Supreme Court decision reversing the Court of Appeal on Dansoman ownership and the mandatory certificate mechanism under section 15. The application was granted, with no order as to costs.
This is an application for an order pursuant to section 15 (1) ofthe State Proceedings Act 1998 for a Certificate of Judgment.
Itdeals with “satisfaction of orders against the state. ” It is for thepayment against the State, and in favour of plaintiffs for thesum of GH₵57, 333, 900. 00 together with accrued interestarising out of the judgment of this Court, differentlyconstituted, dated 13th April 2005 which, remains unsatisfied todate.
The application was supported by an 11-paragraphedaffidavit.
The salient points can be found in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 as follows: “4. On 13th April 2005, the High Court, Accra (Coram HisLordship Justice Kofi Akwaah) delivered judgment in the suit inour favour against the defendants herein to pay to us theprincipal sum of ₵468, 848, 000, 000. 00 (GH₵46, 884, 800. 00) andcost of valuation ₵52, 745. 500, 000. 00 (GH₵5, 274, 550. 00). TheCourt also awarded legal costs ₵52, 745, 500. 000. 00(GH₵5, 274, 550. 00) in our favour.
5. By an order dated 3rd April, 2008, the High Court (Coram S. K. A. Asiedu) made an order for the issue of a Certificate ofJudgment against the State (Exhibit A refers)6. Consequent upon execution processes that we initiated, thedefendants made a part payment of GH₵100, 000. 00 on 15thMay 2009 out of the total judgment debt of GH₵46, 884, 800. 00; leaving an outstanding balance of GH₵46, 784, 000. 00 afterseries of meetings with the judgment debtors (Exhibit B refers)8. That the defendants are truly and justly indebted to us in thesum of GH₵57, 333, 900. 00 together with accrued interestarising out of the judgment of this Court dated 13th April 2005which remains unsatisfied to date and we are desirous ofproceeding into execution thereof.
9. That by an order of this Court dated 29th May, 2015; leavewas granted to us to proceed into execution of the judgmentdebt.
10. However I am advised that being a judgment against theState; it is a legal requirement that this Court should issue tous a Certificate of Judgment as a condition for proceeding intoexecution. ”In moving the application counsel for the plaintiff pointed outthat the defendants, against whom judgment was taken lack, capacity to challenge the present application, and are notentitled to be heard.
The means for attacking the judgment inthe form of ‘an appeal’ or ‘motion for stay of execution’ or an‘application to set aside the judgment’ itself were the processesavailable to them under our rules.
As long as the judgment ofthe Court