Ezeanya Vrs Eze Akachukwu Temple [2023] GHAHC 24 (16 January 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 6) SITTING IN ACCRA, ON MONDAY JANUARY 16, 2023 _____________________________________________________ SUIT NO: GJ/150/2019 OGOCHUKWU NNENNE EZEANYA PLAINTIFF VERSUS EZE AKACHUKWU TEMPLE DEFENDANT 1. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL CLAIMANTS 2. IJEOMA EZE-AKACHUKWU PARTIES: Plaintiff - Present Defendant – Absent Claimants – 1st Claimant represented by Edward Brown 2nd Claimant – Absent COUNSEL: Mr. Kwadwo ADDEAH-SAFO for the Plaintiff/Disputant Mr. Daniel Awuku OFOSU for the 1st Claimant __________________________________________________________________ pg. 1 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION JUDGMENT Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo, JA i. Introduction: [1] The Plaintiff Ogochukwu Nnenne Ezeanya, the Judgment Creditor, caused a Writ of Summons to be issued against the above named Defendant sometime in November 2018 for certain reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons. The record shows that even though the Defendant, who described himself as a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, filed a Statement of Defence, he failed to attend Court to defend the suit. The various reasons he gave for not attending Court are well stated in the record and it is therefore unnecessary to rehash same in this decision. This court on March 26, 2020 entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. At paragraph 33 of the judgment the Court stated as follows: “Based on the evidence heard and my analysis above I hereby enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff for the recovery of the amount of Ninety Million, Six Hundred Thousand Naira (Ꜻ90,600,000.00); which equivalent in Ghana Cedis is GH¢1,248,000.00 under the agreement dated 15th August, 2018. Consequently, the Court hereby DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Relief (A) which is for an order of the Court to enable the Plaintiff to “take possession and ownership of the Defendants properties used as collateral and for judicial sale of same”. The Defendant’s primary obligation is to pay off the debt owed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s right to take possession and dispose of the properties may only become necessary as part of the execution of the judgment. The Relief (B), is also therefore dismissed”. [2] In pursuit of levying execution to realize the fruits of the judgment, the Plaintiff proceeded to attach the landed properties that the Court had refused to grant her the right to take possession. The properties are a Residential Property situate at Ofankor, Accra and a Church Auditorium also situate at Ofankor, Accra. From the records, a Valuation Report was issued by Messrs. Adnan Consult, which fixed market prices pg. 2 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION for both properties. It is not disputed that the attached properties are the same properties stated in the agreement executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the statutory declaration signed on 16 August, 2018, both of which were tendered at trial as both Exhibits “A” and ‘B’. [3] Against the background of the execution and the imminent sale of the attached properties, the Registered Trustees of Lifeline Assembly International and one Ijeoma Eze Akachukwu, presumably the spouse of the Defendant, filed Notices of claim that they have interest in the attached properties. They contended that they are the beneficial owners of the attached properties. The Execution Creditor, the Plaintiff, upon being served with the Notices of Claim, filed a Notice of Dispute to contest the claims of the Claimants. [4] Upon a motion filed by the Registrar of this Court, an order was made to enable the Claimants and the Execution Creditor to appear in Court so that their claim could be determined. The record shows that the 2nd Claimant failed to comply with the orders made by the Court to file her affidavit of interest and therefore her claim was dismissed as abandoned and not proven. The 1st Claimant and the Execution Creditor filed their respective processes arguing for and against the attachment and execution. The claim was subsequently tried summarily after the 1st Claimant had been made the Plaintiff in the action with the Execution Creditor being made a Defendant based on the law and procedure. [5] At the trial, the Court adopted the Affidavit of Interest filed by Mr. Edward Brown who described himself as a Trustee of the Claimant Church as his evidence-in- chief and the evidence of the 1st Claimant and he was cross-examined by Counsel for the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor. The Execution Creditor’s case was presented by Ms. Ogochukwu Ezeanya herself. She was also cross-examined by Counsel for the 1st Claimant and she thereafter closed her case without calling further evidence. pg. 3 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION ii. Affidavit for and against the Claim: [6] The 1st Claimant’s case as stated in the deposition of Mr. Brown is that it was not involved in the substantive litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who is said to be a former Head Pastor of the Church. It is also deposed that the 1st Claimant “does not have knowledge of the suit since its commencement up to the judgment was delivered on the 26th of March, 2020. It was also deposed that at the time of the attachment the Defendant had no interest in the property. According to the Deponent, the Claimant became the owner of the property by a Deed of Assignment dated 4th day of April, 2013 between the Claimant as the Assignee and one Emmanuel Adu Smith. By a Supplementary Affidavit filed on 28/02/2022 “Exhibit A”, a copy of the said Deed of Assignment was attached to support the deposition of the Claimant’s interest. [7] It was further deposed that the Claimant’s Assignor, Emmanuel Adu Smith acquired the land from Nii Odartey Lamptey, Head and Lawful representative of the Gua-Dzaanor family. It was also deposed that “the Claimant, built the Church building after acquiring the land from the contributions of the members of the Church which is its place of worship on the land it purchased”. Mr. Brown further deposed that “the Indenture was stamped at the Lands Commission in 2017 as LVDGAST51592017”. The 1st Claimant’s further case is that it did not benefit from the agreement entered into by its former Head Pastor and it did not give any permission for its property to be used as collateral and it has no knowledge that its property had been “used as a security for loan” in satisfaction of the Defendant’s liabilities. [8] In a further Supplementary Affidavit filed on 12/07/2022, Mr. Brown stated that the Claimant, Lifeline Assembly International is a legal entity which can own property and has the capacity to sue or sustain a legal action in a Court of law. In support of the deposition, he attached Exhibit B, a copy of a search conducted at the Registrar- pg. 4 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION General’s Department, which shows that the Claimant is a Company Limited by Guarantee with the Incorporation date of September 15, 2012. Based on all of the above it was deposed that the attachment is causing embarrassment to members of the Church and causing many to leave the Church to other Churches. Mr. Brown therefore prayed the Court to grant the claim and de-attach the property. [9] To the above depositions, the Judgment Creditor, Madam Ogochukwu, demurred in an Affidavit to Dispute the claim filed on March 15, 2022 at paragraphs 11 – 19 in particular to make its case against the claim. At paragraph 13 of the affidavit in opposition, the Judgment Creditor deposed that “I do not know the property which the 1st Claimant is staking a claim for; as two properties of the Defendant/Judgment Debtor have been seized for purpose of satisfying the Judgment debt; If the instant claim by the 1st Claimant is in reference to the church auditorium then the instant claimants assertion that the Defendant/Judgment debtor has no interest in the property is false, even on the face of its own document (i.e. Exhibit A). By the said Exhibit A, the Defendant/Judgment Debtor is the executing party hence it would be totally false to say that the Defendant/Judgment Debtor had no interest in the subject- matter property. From the Defence and witness statement filed by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor in the substantive action (Exhibit 6), he admitted ownership of these two properties and surrendered title documents covering these two properties to me to assist him raise a loan. This Statement in his witness statement is consistent with the Exhibit A which shows that the Defendant/Judgment Debtor is the owner of the Church auditorium”. [10] She further deposed that “Exhibit A which is a statutory declaration and an Agreement authored by the Defendant/ Judgment Debtor and signed by him on oath (which has also been Judicially considered by the Court in its 26th March 2020 Judgment) supports my contention that the Defendant/Judgment Debtor is the owner of this property. In addition, save the 1st Claimant’s bare assertion of alleging pg. 5 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION ownership of the Church auditorium in the assumed name as contained in Exhibit A there is no evidence before this Honourable Court that the said 1st Claimant is a registered entity which can own a property and more so mount an action in Court. Further, the claim of the 1st Claimant that at the time of the attachment the church auditorium did not form part of the properties of the Defendant Judgment Debtor remains a bare assertion without any prove of change of ownership. The subject matter, being a landed property, interest in same can only be transferred by way of documentary evidence (that is deed Transfer); hence the 1st claimant ought to have attached as an exhibit, documentary evidence which shows that at time of “attachment”, the Defendant/Judgment Debtor had no interest in the church auditorium. However, no such evidence exists on record;…That from the above dispositions, the 1st Claimant has not demonstrated any sustainable interest in the subject matter; hence I pray this Honourable Court to dismiss the notice of claim by the 1st Claimant”. [11] The further deposition of the Judgment Creditor was that; “From the above, the main aim of this interpleader action cannot be far-fetched. It is principally aimed at delaying me in recovering my monies from the Defendant/Judgment Debtor; as all attempts made by the Judgment Debtor and his present lawyer to stay execution of the Judgment in this Court and the Court of Appeal have both failed. This instant interpleader is yet another attempt to frustrate me in recovering my monies and not a real and genuine attempt to stake a claim in the “attached” properties. Otherwise, it is not strange that the lawyer for the Defendant /Judgment Debtor who had wanted to stay the execution of the judgment against the attachment of these two properties would now miraculously stake a claim of ownership for other persons against the interest of his own clients?” pg. 6 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION iii. Legal Arguments of Counsel: [12] Counsel for the 1st Claimant, Mr. Awuku Ofosu referred to portions of the evidence and stated that “The bone of contention in this suit is whether or not the 1st claimant is the bona fide owner of the attached church auditorium. The claimant has a duty to produce credible evidence to establish his title to the attached property. In proof of his title to the attached property the claimant testified through Elder Edward Brown. The claimant attached in the supplementary affidavit filed on the 28th of February, 2022, a deed of assignment dated 4th April 2013. The indenture showed the parties to the land transaction as Emmanuel Adu Smith as the assignor and Life Line Assembly International as the assignee”. [Emphasis Mine]. [13] Counsel further submitted that “the claimant led evidence to the effect that the church was a registered entity. He exhibited a document from the Registrar General’s Department evidencing the proof of registration of the church. There is also evidence on record that the church owned the land it built the auditorium on. In the affidavit in support of the claim of the trustees of the Life line assembly church, they asserted that they were a registered company which could own its own property and mount or defend an action brought against it in court. The documents given to the plaintiff by the defendant judgment debtor as a form of collateral for his personal transaction was not in his name but in the name of the 1st claimant the registered church. The defendant even though was a member of the company at the time, his act of using the church’s landed property’s documentation as collateral for a personal loan cannot be termed as an act of the company. Section 148 of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) provides that any act of an officer of the company is not the act of the company unless the company acting through its organs has expressly or impliedly authorized that officer to so act or the company has represented the officer or agent as having authority to act. The plaintiff did not provide any evidence such as a company pg. 7 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION resolution which authorized the defendant to act on its behalf in a serious issue as securing a loan”. [14] In support of the above arguments, Counsel cited such cases as Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925], Salomon V Salomon [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 and Morkor v. Kumah [No.1] [1999 – 2000] 1 GLR 721 and further submitted that “In the present suit, it is not disputed that the contract and whatever liabilities arising out of it was between the Plaintiff judgment creditor and the Defendant judgment debtor in his personal capacity and never the 1st claimant herein. It is also clearly deductible from the evidence that the attached property claimed by the claimant belongs to the claimant and never the defendant/judgment debtor. The contract the breach of which resulted in the suit conferred no benefit on the claimant and the claimant had no interest nor even knowledge of it at all”. Relying on all of the above and the other aspects of the submission filed, Counsel prayed the Court to grant the claim. In effect it is the prayer of the Claimant that the Honourable Court discharge the attached property as the property does not belong to the Judgment Debtor. [15] Mr. Kwadwo Addeah-Safo on his part after stating the background facts, set out two main issues and discussed them. The issues he raised are as follows: (a) Whether or not the Edward Brown has the capacity to file an affidavit of interest and testify for and on behalf of Life Line Assembly International in this Interpleader Proceedings; and (b) Whether or not the property “attached” (i.e. the disputed property) is owned by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor. [16] On the first issue raised Counsel’s submission was that the issue deals with capacity of Edward Brown to file the affidavit of interest and testified on same for and on behalf of Life Line Assembly International. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff is pg. 8 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION questioning the capacity of the Edward Brown to testify for and on behalf of Life Line Assembly International. Counsel referred to the following snippets of the cross- examination of Mr. Brown: “Q: I am suggesting to you that you have no capacity to testify on behalf of 1st Claimant in this interpleader action as a trustee A: That is not correct my Lord. In the Mission work, Deacons are appointed, Deaconess are appointed, church elders are also appointed but we are not given formal appointment letters as in the formal sector so there is nothing like an appointment letter to prove to the Court. Q: You attached Exhibit “B” to your further supplementary affidavit to establish that Life Line Assembly International is incorporated under the laws of Ghana. A: Q: Is that correct? Yes, My Lord. By this admission, I am suggesting to you that Life Line Assembly International is therefore expected to organize its affairs in accordance with the company laws of Ghana. Do you agree? A: That is so My Lord. But the church system as it is we appoint elders, Counsellors and so on and so forth and it is a recognised practice in Ghana. My Lord, by this line of cross-examination, Edward Brown, and for that matter 1st Claimant, whom Edward Brown claimed were aware of the Interpleader proceeding was put on notice of the obvious want of capacity against Edward Brown to testify for them in this action”. [17] Counsel further referred to parts of the cross-examination testimony of Mr. Brown by which he told the Court that the Trustees/Directors (C. M. Maxwell Korie and Godwin Yaw Ameti) whose names appear in the record of the Registrar-General Department are aware of the interpleader proceedings and submitted that Mr. Brown’s answers suggest that “the Directors of the 1st Claimant were aware of the pg. 9 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION proceeding in this court as far as this interpleader is concerned. Consequently, once the capacity of their alleged agent, Edward Brown, had been challenged as trustee of 1st Claimant and for him to testify on behalf 1st Claimant in that capacity, it was incumbent upon 1st Claimant to have established the fact that Edward Brown is duly authorised to testify for and on behalf of the 1st Claimant. From the record, 1st Claimant did not. Rather, the said Edward Brown testified that it was his duty as trustee to testify without showing the evidence of his alleged trusteeship. By Exhibit “B” attached to the further supplementary affidavit (i.e. the record of registration of 1st Claimant Company at the Registrar-General’s Department), Edward Brown’s name is not noted as either a trustee and/or director of 1st Claimant”. [18] The further submission of Mr. Addeah-Safo’s submission was that Mr. Brown admitted that his name was not on the registered documents of the Claimant. The said evidence was as follows: “Q: Kindly show us any document in this suit that makes you, Edward Brown, a named trustee of Life Line Assembly International. A: I was appointed by the founder and sponsor of Life Line Assembly International in the person of Prophet Maxwell Korie… Q: From your answer above, you will agree with me that in this interpleader action, you have not exhibited any document showing that you are a trustee of Life Line Assembly International. A: My appointment was made by Prophet Maxwell Korie, but I have not brought any document to court to confirm that.” My Lord, from the evidence of Edward Brown, he admits that he is not a named trustee, as per the record of registration of 1st Claimant at the Registrar-General’s Department, though he appeared to be invasion (sic) on that question during cross- examination. He nevertheless insists that he was duly appointed by the 1st Claimant but admits he has not exhibited any such document or instrument of appointment in pg. 10 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION this proceeding. Edward Brown further admits that 1st Claimant, being a body corporate, ought to organize his affairs in accordance with the company laws. [19] Counsel further referred to Section 148 of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992). Subsection 2 which deals with how the authority of an officer to act on behalf of a company is conferred. Section 148 (2) of Act 992 provides as follows: “The authority of an officer or agent of the company may be conferred before action is taken by that officer or agent or by subsequent ratification.” Counsel further stated that there is no evidence before the Court that Mr. Brown was authorised to file the affidavit of interest and testify to same on behalf of 1st Claimant. He also said that there is also no evidence that Mr. Brown’s act on behalf of 1st Claimant has been ratified by the Company. Counsel further stated that Section 383 of Act 992, (i.e. the First Schedule) defines an “officer” in relation to a body corporate to include: “any director, secretary or employee of that body corporate and a receiver and manager of a part of the undertaking of that body corporate, appointed under a power contained in an instrument…” [20] Based on all of the above, Counsel submitted that because Mr. Brown has admitted that there is no formal document appointing him as trustee of 1st Claimant, 1st Claimant, being a body corporate incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Ghana cannot organize its activities differently from what the company law prescribes”. According to Mr. Addeah-Safo what the 1st Claimant ought to have done when it became aware that Mr. Brown’s capacity had been challenged as not having the requisite capacity to testify for and on behalf of the 1st Claimant, was to “have sent a written notice or letter to the court confirming Edward Brown as an officer or agent of the 1st Claimant. However, no such evidence of notice exists on record”. Counsel submitted that to the extent that Mr. Brown does not have capacity “all affidavits filed pg. 11 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION for and testimonies delivered for the 1st Claimant by Edward Brown is clearly inadmissible for the reasons advanced above. We pray this Honourable Court to set same aside. When these affidavits of interest are taken off the record of the Court, what is left is the Notice of Claim filed on 9th August, 2021. The said Notice of Claim, standing on its own is incapable of establishing any form of interest in the subject- matter of dispute. [21] On the 2nd issue raised, Counsel referred to the affidavit deposition of his client and the statutory declaration filed by the Defendant (attached as Exhibit 7 in these proceedings) to say that the property belongs to the Defendant and not the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not challenge the said document in this Interpleader Proceeding “either through an affidavit denial or cross-examination of the Plaintiff on same during trial”. Counsel therefore submitted that the Claimant’s silence raise a presumption that it had no answer to it. He cited the Supreme Court case of Amidu v. A-G (UT Bank and Others Claimants) (2018/2019) 1 GLR 95 to support his submission. [22] Counsel further submitted that Exhibit “B” is the record of the 1st Claimant’s registration and present status on the Registrar of Companies dated 12th July, 2022 shows that Defendant/Judgment Debtor is the sole owner of the 1st Claimant. Exhibit “B” therefore exposes the falsehood in the case of the alleged agent of the 1st Claimant. According to Counsel the attached Church auditorium belongs to the Defendant/Judgment Debtor as his name alone appears on the registration documents. I note that Counsel also referred to the Section 8 (1) and (2) of Act 992 to say the Company activities by the Defendant went contrary to its stated objectives. With the greatest respect to Counsel, I do not see the import and relevance of that submission to the determination of the claim as the submission is related to the activities of the original Defendant. pg. 12 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION [23] Finally, Counsel invited the Court to look at the admissibility of the Claimant’s Exhibit “A”, being the Assignment attached to make the case that the property belongs to the Claimant. Counsel submitted that “being an instrument, which seeks to transfer an interest in land, same ought to have been stamped in accordance with the stamp duty Act for it to remain admissible”. Counsel again referred to the case of Amidu v. A-G (UT Bank Claimants) SUPRA where it was held as follows: “Any document executed in Ghana or elsewhere that affected land situate in Ghana could not be admitted in evidence if it had not been duly stamped… Based on the above and other aspects of the submission referred to herein, Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the claim. iv. The Court’s Opinion & Analysis: [24] I start my analysis by stating that having read thoroughly the full spectrum of the respective cases of the parties, noting in particular the nature of the case and the grounds upon which the contentious issues are premised and argued by Counsel, I propose to deal with the matter in controversy by reference to a single issue, which is: Whether or not based on all the facts, the law and the circumstances of this case the 1st Claimant has made out a case based on the balance of probabilities its interest in the attached property? [25] The Registered Trustees of the Lifeline Assembly International are in Court pursuant to Order 48 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, (2004), C. I. 47 after filing the claim on 9th August, 2021. The most important object of these interpleader proceedings is to enable the Deputy Sheriff, who has seized/attached the property and in possession of it to know who the true owner is. The Court is therefore called upon to decide whether or not the adverse claim of the 1st Claimant is established and proven based on the law. pg. 13 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION [26] To leave no one in doubt, it is desirable to set out the relevant provision which the Claim is anchored in. Order 48 Rule 1 entitled “Interpleader” provides as follows: Entitlement to relief by way of interpleader 1. A person may apply to the Court for relief by way of interpleader where (a) the person seeking relief, in this Order referred to as “the applicant” is under liability for any debt, money or goods for or in respect of which the person is or expects to be sued by two or more parties in this Order referred to as "the claimants" making adverse titles thereto; or (b) the person seeking relief is a Registrar or other officer of the Court charged with the execution of process by or under the authority of the Court, and a claim is made to any property movable or immovable taken or intended to be taken in execution under any process or to the proceeds or value of any of the property by any claimant other that the person against whom the process is issued. [27] In the case of REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT; ACCRA; EX PARTE ANYAN, (PLATINUM HOLDINGS – INTERESTED PARTY) [2009] SCGLR 255 the Supreme Court per Owusu JSC stated at Holding 1 with regards to interpleader that “it was when property had been attached normally under a writ of fieri facias that the person other than the defendant who claimed an interest in it could interplead”. [Emphasis Mine]. [28] In this case, as conceded by the 1st Claimant’s Counsel, it bears the burden of proof on the preponderance of probabilities to produce credible evidence to establish its title to the attached property both in law and in fact. See the Evidence Act1 and the oft-cited case of MAJOLAGBE v. LARBI [1959] GLR 191 which makes it clear that where a person makes an averment or assertion which is denied by his adversary, the 1 Sections 11(4), 12, 14 and 17 pg. 14 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION one making the averment has the burden to satisfy the Court by establishing that the averment or assertion is true. In this case the Judgment Creditor having denied/disputed the claim, the onus of proof is on the Claimant to prove its case for the discharge of the attached property in execution of the judgment of the Court. See also the case of case of OKUDZETO ABLAKWA (No. 2) v. ATTORNEY GENERAL& ANOTHER [2012] 2 SCGLR 845. [29] In resolving the issue set out above, I first wish to deal with the issues raised by the Execution Creditor/Plaintiff’s Counsel. I note that Counsel has raised the issue of capacity of the Claimant’s witness Mr. Edward Brown to file an affidavit and also to testify. I have read Counsel’s submission thoroughly and the reasons proffered and I am of the respectful opinion that I am not persuaded and impressed with the submission. In my respectful opinion, the submission creates the impression that Mr. Brown is the Claimant. He is not. The Claimant is the “Registered Trustees of the Lifeline Assembly International”. Exhibit “B”, the document from the Registrar- General sets out when it was registered and names the officers of the Company. To my mind, the registration document clearly sets out the legal status of the Claimant, as a Church or religious organization. Now, having filed the claim, Mr. Brown, as he rightly pointed out was asked to represent the Church as a witness because he is an appointed Trustee of the Church. I know of no law, and Counsel did not refer any to me which states that a witness save an Attorney should provide “an instrument of appointment” as was suggested in order to qualify as a witness in a claim like this. [30] The law on who is qualified as a witness to my mind, is Section 602 of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323. With respect to the Judgment Creditor, I do not see the nexus 2 Section 60—Personal Knowledge Required. (1) A witness may not testify to a matter unless sufficient evidence is introduced to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. (2) Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness himself. pg. 15 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION of Section 148 and 383 of the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992) and the qualification of Mr. Brown as a witness in these proceedings. This is not a capacity argument in any way shape or form. I do not think that the Judgment Creditor’s attempt to make a case that Edward Brown lacks capacity to file the affidavits and to testify is anchored in law. Respectfully, my understanding of the law and appreciation of same informs me that the issue raised and the arguments made are misconceived and I reject same. [31] I next turn my attention to the second issue raised by Counsel for the Execution Creditor that the 1st Claimant did not challenge the statutory declaration and the agreement signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this Interpleader Proceeding “either through an affidavit denial or cross-examination of the Plaintiff on same during trial”. Again, with respect to Counsel, I disagree because the whole essence of the 1st Claimant’s claim is based on that document because that was the basis of the judgment. In my respectful opinion the deposition by Mr. Brown that “Claimant became the owner of the property by a deed of assignment dated 4th day of April, 2013 between the Claimant as the Assignee and one Emmanuel Adu Smith”, is a clear indication of the 1st Claimant’s challenge of the Defendant’s assertions that he is the owner of the attached property, in this case the Church auditorium. With the greatest respect, the fact that the 1st Claimant’s Counsel did not use the hackneyed phrases “I put it to you” or “I suggest to you” to the Plaintiff does not mean that it did not challenge the said Exhibit 7. To that extent, I am again not persuaded by the submission. [32] I now turn to the main issue for my determination and it is whether or not based on the law and all of circumstances the 1st Claimant has made out a case based on the balance of probabilities its interest in the attached property. As earlier indicated, I am of the view that the legal status of the 1st Claimant is made out based (3) A witness may testify to a matter without proof of personal knowledge if no objection is raised by any party. pg. 16 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION on Exhibit “B”. It therefore means it has standing to make the claim. Having thus made the claim, the question is has the 1st Claimant legally established its interest in the attached property? The 1st Claimant contends it is the owner of the land on which the Church is situate, and it built same with the contributions of its members. Exhibit “A”, the Deed of Conveyance dated April 4, 2013 was tendered by the 1st Claimant to make its case. I note that at paragraph 10 of the affidavit of interest, it was deposed that “the Indenture was stamped at the Lands Commission in 2017 as LVDGAST51592017”. [33] Counsel for the Execution Creditor in his submission stated that Exhibit “A” is not stamped and should therefore not be admitted as it is an instrument affecting land. Having reviewed the record and the said Exhibit “A”, I agree with Counsel. There is no indication that the said document is stamped despite the deposition of 1st Claimant’s witness. Since it is a document tendered to establish an interest in land, once it is not stamped it does not comply with the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689). [34] Indeed the Supreme Court put that issue beyond per-adventure when it held in the case of LIZORI LTD. v. BOYE & SCHOOL OF DOMESTIC SCIENCE & CATERING [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 889 that: “The provision in section 32 of Act 689 was so clear and unambiguous and required no interpretation. Either the document has been stamped and appropriate duty paid in accordance with the law in force at the time it was executed or it should not be admitted in evidence. There was no discretion to admit it in the first place and order the party to pay the duty” later. [Emphasis Mine]. The law is clear that non-compliance with the provisions of a statute has the effect of invalidating an action and the Court has no discretion in the matter. See also the case of GAIZIE, ZWENNES, HUGHES & CO v. CRACKLAAN B. V. [2012] 1 SCGLR 363. pg. 17 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION [35] Since the deed of conveyance is the legal basis for the 1st Claimant’s claim that it has interest in the attached property, to wit, the Church auditorium, its lack of stamping makes it inadmissible and therefore, I am unable to state that it has interest in the said property based on the law. It is my conclusion that the 1st Claimant has failed to establish its legal interest in the property. Based on all of the above, the CLAIM IS DISMISSED. Accordingly ordered. (Sgd) KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO, JA (JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL) pg. 18 LIFELINE ASSEMBLY INTERNATIONAL v. OGOCHUKWU EZEANYA – INTERPLEADER - DECISION