TRUE FAITH CHURCH VS TRUE FAITH EVANG. CHURCH & ANOR
March 12, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE CYNTHIA MARTINSON (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
March 12, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court of Ghana, per Justice Cynthia Martinson, tried an interpleader under Order 44 Rule 13(b) of CI 47 arising from enforcement of a consent judgment between True Faith Church of Ghana and True Faith Evangelical Church. Claimant Rev. Seth Ofori asserted personal ownership of the Tatrafoso-Dadease church building and contents on Plot No. 20A Block AB, relying on vendor Kofi Maama’s sale, allocation by the Dadease Stool, site plans, and municipal receipts. The judgment creditor countered that the land and building belonged to True Faith Church Ghana, supported by allocation papers for Plot 20, building plans, a municipal building permit, ECG customer information naming True Faith Evangelical Church, and evidence of Plaintiff’s involvement with church documents post-2017. Applying evidentiary rules on burden, title, and the heightened standard for forgery, the court found Plaintiff failed to prove title to the building and had forged his allocation documents, but proved ownership of musical instruments via unchallenged receipts. The execution stood; the seized instruments were ordered returned; special damages were denied; and no costs were awarded.
This is an Interpleader action under Order 44 R 12 of CI 47 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules.
Background of this Interpleader Action: On the 15th of December 2015, the plaintiff in the substantive case True Faith Church Ghana issued a Writ in this court seeking for recovery of over 75 branches therein described as branches mentioned in paragraph 10 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim from the Defendant in the substantive case, known as True Faith Evangelical Church.
On the 21st Day of July 2017 consent Judgement was entered in favour of the plaintiff in the substantive case by this court differently constituted, declaring title to the branches listed in paragraph 10 of the plaintiff’s [judgement creditor herein] statement of claim in the substantive case.
The judgment against the defendant [judgement debtor herein] in the substantive case was entered 2/10/17 and subsequently, an amended entry of judgment was also entered on the 8th of November 2017. The plaintiff in the substantive case with the support of the police and court bailiffs went around collecting keys and properties as declared by the consent judgment from the defendant in the substantive case in the process of enforcing the consent judgment.
Subsequently, on the 31/1/2022 the Claimant filed Notice of Claim under Order 44 Rule 12 of CI 47, claiming title to building/structure and content situate, lying at Tatrafoso Mampong being the subject maꢀer of the aꢀachment and same was served on the judgement Creditor on the 31/ 1/2022. The Deputy Sheriff served a notice to Admit or Dispute the claim on the judgment creditor on the 28th of April 2022 as required by the Rules.
The judgment creditor then filed a notice to dispute the claim under Order 44 R 12[2] of CI 47. The interpleader summons was therefore forwarded to the court under Order 44 Rule [12] 4 for the determination.
Following the interpleader action between the claimant and judgment creditor and considering their averments the court decided to try the action under Order 44 Rule 13[b]. In this interpleader action under Order 44 R 13 [b] CI 47. The court reached a consensus with the parties that based on the issues at stake the Claimant will be designated the plaintiff and the judgment/creditor will be designated as the defendant.
In this judgement, the claimant is [herein after referred to as Plaintiff] Plaintiff/claimant when the need arises.
The Judgement creditor is [hereinafter referred to as the Defendant]but also as