Guaranty Trust Bank (gh) Ltd Vrs Western Steel & Forgings Ltd and Others [2017] GHASC 31 (31 May 2017)

Guaranty Trust Bank (gh) Ltd Vrs Western Steel & Forgings Ltd and Others [2017] GHASC 31 (31 May 2017)

The principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable because the alleged promise was made after the auction had already occurred. The application to set aside the auction was filed out of time, and no material irregularity or substantial injury was proven. The appeal therefore lacked merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] GHASC 31
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Guaranty Trust Bank (GH) Ltd; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Western Steel & Forgings Ltd and Others
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Auction Sales, Promissory Estoppel, Execution of Judgments, Setting Aside Sale, Limitation Periods
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Secured Transactions Auction Sales Promissory Estoppel Execution of Judgments Setting Aside Sale Limitation Periods

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guaranty Trust Bank (GH) Ltd

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Western Steel & Forgings Ltd and Others

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the representations made by the respondent in the letter of 3rd October 2013 constituted promissory estoppel regarding the auction held on 30th September 2013
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside the auction sale was out of time under Order 45 rule 10 of CI 47
  3. 3 Whether there was any material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the auction sale

Ratio Decidendi

The principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable because the alleged promise was made after the auction had already occurred. The application to set aside the auction was filed out of time, and no material irregularity or substantial injury was proven. The appeal therefore lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed
  • Application to set aside auction sale dismissed