OBIBINI BLACKMAN LIMITED & ANOR VS CAL BANK PLC & ANOR

On 2nd February 2023, the parties agreed for the court to appoint the firm ADSAN CONSULT to do the valuation work of the properties attached for an intended public auction which had been advertised.

At the time, the Plaintiffs had filed a Motion for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction dated 20th January 2023 praying for the court to restrain the Defendants by themselves, their agents etc. from using the 1st Defendant’s Valuation Report prepared for the public auction of Plaintiff’s properties for any such or other public auction and from conducting the public auction so advertised by the 2nd Defendant on grounds stated in the Supporting Affidavit. The said Motion was differed for the court to appoint a Valuer to do the re-valuation.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs in a letter dated 16th May 2023 addressed to the Registrar of this court served a Notice of Rejection of the Cost of the Valuation undertaken by the court appointed Valuer. In the said letter, the Plaintiffs referred to a letter received from 1st Defendant dated 20th April 2023 to the effect that upon negotiations with the Valuer, the Valuer had reduced the cost of the valuation from GH¢238,264.75 to GH¢214,158.02. The 1st Plaintiff was to pay his portion of the cost of the said valuation being GH¢107,079.10 by 27th April 2023.

The reasons assigned by the Plaintiffs for rejecting the cost of valuation contained in the said letter, and the submission made by Counsel is as follows. The 1st Plaintiff says that it engaged ASSENTA in 2021 to do a revaluation of the properties used to secure the loan facility from 1st Defendant at the cost of GH¢13,000.00 and the number of properties valued at the time were more than the properties valued by the present valuer. That the 1st Defendant unilaterally engaged another valuer to do a second valuation which the Plaintiffs have so rejected.

Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that the said valuation cost has been debited to the 1st Plaintiff’s account to the tune of GH¢160,000.00 even though no proforma invoice was submitted for consideration/approval before ADSAN Consult commenced work. Further to that, the Plaintiffs were never involved in the negotiations with ADSAN Consult on the cost of the valuation and that the said costs which has been debited to 1st Plaintiff is a calculated attempt by the 1st Defendant to fleece and collapse 1st Plaintiff’s company. Counsel for Plaintiffs submitted that at the time the 1st Defendant decided to call in the loan due to in