PRUDENTIAL BANK LIMITED v. GYAMFUA ABABIO INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS

RULING

Before me is an application for an order for reserved price for the auction of the 1st and 3rd defendants’/Judgment Debtors’/Respondents’ immovable property in fulfilment of a judgment debt. This application raises procedural issues which border on execution of judgments. The background to the application is narrated below:

On 3rd November, 2016 parties to the suit filed terms of settlement and on 8th November, 2016 the same was adopted by the court as consent judgment. Upon default of the terms of settlement by the Defendants/Judgment Debtors (hereinafter called the Respondents), the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor (hereinafter called the Applicant) filed an Entry of Judgment on 9th June, 2017 and commenced the execution process by issuing a Writ of fierifacias (fifa) to attach two immovable properties which were used as security for the various facilities advanced to the Respondents. Thereafter, the two immovable properties described as an industrial property and a Hotel were both valued and valuation reports dated December 2017 and November, 2017 respectively were provided by the valuer. In December, 2017, the court granted the applicant herein an order for reserved price in respect of the Industrial Property which is situate at Plot 5B Block XVIII, Adum, Kumasi. However, according to the applicant all attempts to auction the Industrial Property have proved futile. This application is, therefore, focused on the Hotel i.e. Royale Lamerta Hotel situate at Plot 2, Block S, West Nhyieso Extension, Kumasi.

The grounds of the application are contained in the affidavit in support filed on 29th September, 2018. The applicant is praying the court to fix the reserved price of the property, Royale Lamerta Hotel situate at Plot 2, Block S, West Nhyieso Extension, Kumasi at GHC10,424,200.00.

The Respondents are opposed to the application and have demonstrated the grounds in an affidavit in opposition filed on 30th October, 2018.

In his written submission, counsel for the respondent cited a plethora of legal authorities and invited the court to dismiss the application since the whole execution process is flawed. Counsel’s submissions are summed up as follows:

Counsel contended that the Entry of Judgment filed by the applicant is never the judgment that was pronounced by the court and to that extent the same is null and void and incapable of invoking an execution process including the instant application.

Counsel also submitted that granted the entry of judg