OLD PARK ENGINEERING SERV. LTD VS CASSEL ENERGY LIMITED AND LHS GHANA LIMITED
April 15, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
April 15, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
His Lordship George K. Koomson of the High Court considered an interlocutory application by the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant seeking to restrain the Deputy Sheriff from executing against immovable property at Tema while an interpleader appeal was pending. The application followed a 14 January 2019 interpleader judgment that favored the Claimant with respect to certain movables but held that the Tema land belonged to the Defendant/Judgment Debtor company, Cassel Ltd. An earlier motion for stay of execution was refused on 11 February 2019 as the judgment was non‑executable. Invoking Order 25 of C.I. 47 and authorities including Merchant Bank (Ghana) Ltd v Similar Ways Ltd, Republic v High Court, Ho: Ex parte Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana, Anaman v Osei Tutu, and Vanderpuje v Nartey, the court held the Applicant had not shown a legal or equitable right requiring protection. The court found the building permit (LH4) in joint names (Cassel‑LHS‑Bluefone) and evidence of payment by Bluefone Marine Fisheries Ltd undermined the Applicant’s claimed ownership. The balance of convenience favored allowing execution. The application was refused and dismissed, with GH¢3,000 costs to the Respondent.
This is an application filed by the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant seeking an order of injunction to restrain the Deputy Sheriff from proceeding with the execution process in respect of land pending the determination of an interpleader appeal.
I have read the Application and the various affidavits filed by the parties.
I have also considered the statement of case filed by both Counsel in support and in opposition to the application.
Regard has also been given to Order 25 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules (C. I. 47). A brief summary of the facts giving rise to this application are that, in an interpleader action by the Applicant herein, Judgment was given by this Court on 14th January 2019 in favor of the Claimant in respect of certain items except immovable property situated at Tema, which this Court found to be rightfully owned by the Judgment debtor.
The Applicant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, filed an appeal on 21st January 2019. Pursuant to the appeal, Applicant filed a motion for stay of execution before this Court which was refused on 11th February 2019 on the grounds that the judgment sought to be stayed by the Applicant was non executable.
The Applicant herein has therefore filed this Application in the alternative.
The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such applications is established in Order 25(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CI 47). Furthermore, in this particular instance, the challenge of the judgment being a non-executable order is addressed in MERCHANT BANK (GHANA) LTD v SIMILAR WAYS LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 440, where it was established that a Court may stay the enforcement of an executable decision pending the determination of an appeal on a subsequent non-executable order.
The Applicant herein is rightly entitled to make the application for injunction despite the refusal of the earlier Stay of Execution application.
In the case of REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, HO: EX PARTE EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF GHANA[1991] 1 GLR 323, where a refusal of a stay of execution application was not a hindrance to the grant of an application for injunction after the final judgment of the High Court.
When considering an application for injunction, as set out in Order 25 of CI 47 the Court is tasked first to identify the existence of a legal or equitable right that needs to be protected, and having identified this right, the Court is then required to assess the balance of convenience to see whether irreparable damage, ha