Try asking the following...
RULING
I have listened to the submissions by counsel for the Defendants and the Plaintiff.
I have also gone through the documents filed in support and in opposition to the motion filed by the Defendants on 7th June, 2023 for the court to vary its orders in respect of the Reserved Price dated 7th February, 2023. I have considered the antecedents of this case.
The Plaintiff’s counsel has informed the court that the Judgment Debt as at today, 22nd September, 2023 would be about USD5, 000, 000. 00 which is about GH¢60, 000, 000. 00. In cases of an auction, after the Judgment Creditor has been paid and the State has received its 3% tax and the Auctioneer has also been paid the auctioneer’s fees, the Judgment Debtor is given any amount which would be left.
It means that if there is any means by which the court can ensure that the attached property is sold far more than the judgment debt, the court must assist in that direction.
The Defendants have attached two valuation reports to their application as exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’. The two reports put the forced sale price of the attached properties at GH¢99, 458, 201. 00. The two reports are from Assenta Property Consulting Limited and Quans Consult Limited.
The two entities have been described in the reports which are exhibits ‘‘D’ and ‘E’ as consultants, valuers etc.
These are experts in the field of valuation of properties.
It is the law that a court is not bound by the evidence or opinion given by an expert such as a valuer.
However, it is equally the law that a court should give good reasons why an expert opinion is to be rejected.
See: TETTEH & ANOR V HAYFORD (SUBSTITUTED BY) LARBI & DECKER [2012] 1 SCGLR 417 SASU V WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.
LTD. [1960] GLR 4 CA DARBAH AND ANOTHER V AMPAH [1989-1990] 1 GLR 598 CA I do not have any reason to reject the opinion of the experts as stated in exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’. The Plaintiff counsel’s objection to the experts opinion is oral and not documentary unlike exhibits ‘D and E’. The law is settled, that where oral evidence or averment conflicts with documentary evidence such as exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’, the documentary evidence must prevail, where the documentary evidence is authentic and genuine.
See: WOOD (SUBSTITUTED BY) ASANTE-KORANTENG v TAMAKLOE AND DERBAN[2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 852 FOSUA & ADU-OPOKU v DUFIE (DECEASED) AND ADU-POKU MENSAH [2009]SCLGR 310 ATADI v LADZEKPO [1981] GLR 218 CA YORKWA v DUAH [1992-1993] GBR 278 CA REPUBLIC v NANA AKUAMOAH BOATENG I