SULEMANA ALIDU VS BABA ALHASSAN SALIFU & 1 ORS
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an interpleader proceeding to determine the ownership of a property attached during the execution of a default judgment. The claimant, Adams Mohammed, asserted ownership of the property, presenting evidence including land purchase receipts, building material invoices, and a site plan. Despite discrepancies in the site plan's accuracy, the court found the claimant's evidence generally consistent with his claim of ownership. The judgment creditor's belief in the judgment debtor's ownership was based on hearsay. The court emphasized the importance of considering the totality of evidence in land ownership disputes and ruled in favor of the claimant, ordering the release of the property from attachment.
In the suit that led to the instant interpleader proceeding, the plaintiff, Sulemana Alidu, sued the defendant, Baba Alhassan Salifu, for the recovery of an amount of twenty one thousand USD dollars or its equivalent in cedis and interest thereon at the prevailing bank rate. In the accompanying statement of claim, the plaintiff, who stated that he was ordinarily resident in Norway, alleged that the defendant had induced him to invest in his business of supplying foodstuffs to schools under the pretext that it was profitable. After he had transferred an amount of 21,000 USD into the defendant’s account, he discovered to his dismay that the defendant had squandered it on “worldly pleasures.” The defendant filed an entry of appearance but failed to file a statement of defence within the stipulated period of eight days under the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 C.I 47. As a result, Counsel for the plaintiff filed for and was granted judgment in default of defence against the defendant.
In the process of execution of the said default judgment, the deputy sheriff attached Hse No. 39 Rasta Village, Ashaiman believed to be the property of the judgment debtor. No sooner had the property been attached than the claimant, Adams Mohammed, filed a notice of claim notifying the Registrar that, he, rather than the judgment debtor was the owner of the attached property. In accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 44 Rule 12 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) C.I 47, the Registrar served a notice on the judgment creditor to admit or dispute the title of the claimant to the attached property. Upon due service of the said notice the judgment creditor promptly filed a notice to dispute and thereby set in motion the post trial dispute resolution mechanism under Order 44 Rule 12 of C.I 47. Accordingly, the Registrar applied for an order for the
claimant and the judgment creditor to appear before Court under Order 44 Rule (12) 4 for the determination of the issue between them.
In the affidavit in support of his claim, the claimant asserted that he bought the land on which the attached property was located from one Margaret Boye Doe in 2004 at the cost of GHC37,000 and attached a photocopy of the receipt as proof of the sale of the land to him. He further claimed that he approached the Tema Development Corporation (TDC) for regularization of his occupation of the land after he had been issued with a site plan. He attached a copy of the receipt issued by T