GH - SACHIA 9 & CO. LTD. v. PAUL KENNEDY TAWIAH

WELBOURNE (MRS), J. A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court dated 9th June 2014.

The facts briefly are that the Plaintiff obtained judgment against the Defendant on 11th June 2013 where the judge entered judgment as follows:

1. Plaintiff is to recover the sum of Two Hundred Million cedis (GH20, 000.

Cost of GH2, 000 awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant.

The record shows that the solicitors on the record, G. A. Sarpong & Co filed Judgment after Trial on 2nd July 2013.

The total recoverable judgment debt was stated as GH56, 000.

On 26th August 2013, the Plaintiffs solicitors issued a Praecipe for Writ of FI FA to execute the said judgment debt.

It seems to me that from that date and reading the record, the parties attempted to settle out of court.

To that extent, the Defendant made a payment of GH20, 000.

Then on the record, we find an application on notice for Reserved Price filed by different solicitors for the Plaintiff in the person of Kwasi Blay Esq. on the 13th January 2014 with a return date stated for 27th January 2014.

Interestingly, the affidavit in opposition to the application was filed on 4th June 2014, almost six months after the Motion was filed.

In the affidavit in opposition the deponent deposed to several facts among which in paragraph 4 he stated that at all material times the solicitors who had conduct of the case were G. A. Sarpong& Co.

That an appeal was filed by defendant against the judgment of the Trial court dated 11th June 2012.

Soon after, the parties entered into negotiations to settle the matter so as to mitigate losses on both sides.

In paragraph 9 of the affidavit in opposition he stated that the attempts at settlement were without prejudice to the appeal filed and that if there was no resolution, then the appeal would be pursued.

It was whilst negotiations was on-going that on 31st December 2013 bailiffs of the court attached his property, namely the Mercedes Benz ML, the subject of the application.

When the Plaintiffs Solicitors were contacted, they denied knowledge of the said attachment and expressed their surprise.

The defendant then filed an application for stay of execution of the judgment and served same on G. A. Sarpong & Co.

It was at the return date that the defendant realized that the execution process had been made by the current solicitors.

However the defendant had not bee served with a notice of change of Solicitors neither on the defendant nor on h