Ghana Commercial Bank Vrs Eastern Alloys Company Ltd and 2 Others [2018] GHASC 42 (4 July 2018)

Ghana Commercial Bank Vrs Eastern Alloys Company Ltd and 2 Others [2018] GHASC 42 (4 July 2018)

The appeal fails because the 1st defendant did not timely and properly notify the existence of sufficient movable property, thereby waiving any right to object to the sale of immovable property; the attachment and sale was a procedural irregularity, not an illegality, and the appeal was filed within time as it was against a final decision.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 42
Parties
Plaintiff/judgment Creditor/respondent/appellant/respondent: Ghana Commercial Bank; 1st Defendant/appellant/respondent/appellant: Eastern Alloys Company Limited; 2nd Respondent: World Prayer Centre; 3rd Respondent: Dela Akpey
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment at Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Attachment and Sale of Property, Priority of Movable Over Immovable Property, Timeliness of Appeals, Waiver of Rights
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Attachment and Sale of Property Priority of Movable Over Immovable Property Timeliness of Appeals Waiver of Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghana Commercial Bank

Plaintiff/judgment Creditor/respondent/appellant/respondent

Eastern Alloys Company Limited

1st Defendant/appellant/respondent/appellant

World Prayer Centre

2nd Respondent

Dela Akpey

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attachment and sale of immovable property before movable property is illegal or a mere irregularity
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was filed within time based on interlocutory or final nature of the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the 1st defendant did not timely and properly notify the existence of sufficient movable property, thereby waiving any right to object to the sale of immovable property; the attachment and sale was a procedural irregularity, not an illegality, and the appeal was filed within time as it was against a final decision.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 17th December 2015 affirmed.
  • Attachment and auction sale of 1st defendant’s factory premises restored.