GOLD AND ANOTHER VRS. OKUMU AND ANOTHER (LD/0160/2017) [2023] GHAHC 587 (7 November 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ACCRA LAND COURT DIVISION ‘9’ HELD ON TUESDAY THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB J. (MS.) SUIT NO. LD/0160/2017 1. JOSEPH BERNARD GOLD PLAINTIF/JUDGMENT-CREDITOR 2. LYDIA GOLD - RESPONDENTS VRS 1. CHOKORSI OKUMU - 1ST DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT – 2. JONES OFORI ATTA DEBTOR/APPLICANT R U L I N G BACKGROUND The action was instituted by the 1st Plaintiff who was stated to be underage, acting by her mother and next friend, the 2nd Plaintiff, by a Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 15th February 2017 and subsequently amended on 16th February 2021. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 1 of 19 It was the case of the 2nd Plaintiff that the house which was the subject of the action was acquired for her by her husband as part of a divorce settlement as she was expected to move out of the matrimonial home upon the dissolution of the marriage. It was the further case of the 2nd Plaintiff, that she had placed a caretaker in the house, moved her belongings into the subject property and was preparing to move into same after delivering her baby on 6th February 2017 when she was informed by the caretaker that the 1st Defendant had besieged the house with land guards for the reason that the subject property had been sold to him by the vendor. The Plaintiff stated that the 1st Defendant unlawfully broke into and moved into the house and would not stop the trespass unless compelled by the Court. By their action the Plaintiffs sought inter alia a declaration of title to a three bed-room house situate at Mile 7, Achimota in Accra and recovery of possession. It was the case of the 1st Defendant that to the best of his knowledge, he had bought the house in dispute from the 2nd Defendant, paid full consideration for same and was therefore entitled to the property. The 1st Defendant denied the Plaintiffs claim generally and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof of their assertions. After a trial, this Court differently constituted found that the Plaintiffs are the legal and beneficial owners of the house which was the subject matter of the dispute and entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs. Aggrieved, the 1st Defendant/ Judgment-Debtor/ Applicant hereafter referred to as “Applicant” filed a Notice of Appeal on 24th February 2023. On 14th August 2023, the Applicant filed the instant application on notice for stay of execution pending the appeal. The Applicant also filed a supplementary affidavit in support of the application on 18th October 2023. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 2 of 19 The Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditors/Respondents, hereafter referred to as “Respondents” opposed the application by an affidavit in opposition filed on 25th August 2023. SUMMARY OF THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT In the affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant stated that even though the judgment of the Court is dated 30th November 2022, it was delivered on 1st December 2022. A copy of the judgment is attached and marked as Exhibit AD1. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondents have taken steps which indicate that they intend to execute the judgment of the Court against them by filing an Entry of Judgment dated 10th May 2022 and an application for writ of possession to issue dated 7th August 2023, copies of which are attached to the affidavit in support of the application and marked as Exhibit AD 4 series. The Applicant stated that on 24th February 2023, he filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the court and a copy is attached to the affidavit in support of the application as Exhibit AD2. Relying on the grounds of appeal stated in Exhibit AD2, the Applicant prayed the Court to grant the instant application for stay of execution pending appeal for the reason that the appeal has a real likelihood of success. The Applicant added that the subject property is his only accommodation, that he stays there with his dependents and this amounts to a special circumstance. The Applicant prayed the Court to consider this special circumstance and grant the application to prevent hardship to him. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 3 of 19 It is the further case of the Applicant that if the application is refused and the Respondents execute the judgment, that is, recover possession of the subject property from him, he cannot be restored to the status quo ante if the appeal is successful. In a supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application on 18th October 2023, the Applicant added that there is another judgment given in another suit, entitled New Achimota Traders Association vrs Duku Nartey Wayo and 2 others (Suit No. LD/0161/2015) in respect of the subject property. The Applicant stated that due to the uncertainty surrounding the ownership of the subject property, it will be in the interest of justice and all parties for the status quo to be maintained until all matters in dispute are determined on appeal. In support of this claim, the Applicant attached an order for substituted service and an Entry of Judgment dated 3rd July 2023 and 9th December 2022 in Suit No. LD/0161/2015 entitled New Achimota Traders Association vrs Duku Nartey Wayo and 2 others, marked as Exhibit AD1 series. RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION The Respondents opposed the application on the ground that the judgment in their favour is sound in law and the appeal has no chance of success at all. The Respondents added that merely stating that the appeal has a real likelihood of success is not sufficient to show that the appeal has a good chance of success. The Respondents also stated that the property which was the subject of the dispute is not occupied by the Applicant and that it is a caretaker who resides in it and who received the Application for writ of possession to issue which was filed recently. The Respondents added that the Applicant resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court and it should lie ill in his mouth to say that the execution of the judgment should be stayed because he stands to suffer hardship if he is evicted from the property by the Respondents in executing the judgment of the Court. It is the case of the Respondents that delivering up possession to them in accordance with a valid judgment of the Court pending the determination of the appeal SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 4 of 19 would not render the outcome of the appeal nugatory as the house is immovable property which will always be available and can be given back to the Applicant in the unlikely event that the appeal is successful. It is also the case of the Respondents that the present application is only intended to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the judgment in their favour. In support of this claim, the Respondents stated that the Applicant filed the Notice of Appeal just about a week to the expiration of the three -month period provided by the Rules of Court for filing same and the Applicant took no steps to prosecute the appeal until after the Respondents lawyers filed the motion for writ of possession to issue. The Respondents prayed that the present application should be refused. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS IN COURT At the hearing of the application, Counsel for the Applicant rehashed the Applicant’s case especially as stated in the supplementary affidavit in support of the application and prayed the Court to grant the application to maintain the status quo pending the appeal in view of the execution being levied on the subject property by other Claimants in Suit No. LD/0161/2015. Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submitted that there is nothing in Exhibit AD1 series which indicates that the judgment in Suit No. LD/0161/2015 is in respect of the subject property. Counsel added that as the Respondents have been declared owners of the subject property by this Court, they are better positioned to protect the subject property in any action by the Claimants in Suit No LD/0161/2015 rather than the Applicant. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 5 of 19 Counsel for the Respondents also referred to the Witness Statement filed by the Applicant, which was admitted in evidence during the trial as his evidence in chief and stated that the Applicant admitted in the Witness Statement and cross-examination that he is resident outside the jurisdiction. Counsel for Respondents submitted that the Applicant does not live in the subject property as alleged and prayed that the present application should be refused. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION The issue raised for determination by the present application is whether or not the judgment of the Court should be stayed pending the appeal filed by the Applicant. APPLICABLE LAW MATTERS OCCURING AFTER JUDGMENT WHICH MAY BE GROUNDS FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION Order 43 Rule 11 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) is one of the provisions which regulates the practice for making Applications for stay of execution in the High Court. It provides thus: Without prejudice to Order 45 rule 15, a party against whom a judgment or order has been given or made may apply to the Court for a stay of execution of the judgment or order or other relief on the ground of matters which have occurred since the date of the judgment or order, and the Court may by order grant the relief, on such terms as it thinks just. (Emphasis added) In the Ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of The Republic v. High Court (Criminal Division 9), Accra, Ex parte: Ecobank Ghana Limited, and Origin 8 and another as Interested Parties, [Unreported; Civil Motion No J5/10/2022; 18 January 2022], the Supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Pwamang JSC explained that Order 43 Rule 11 of C. I. 47 is a SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 6 of 19 very general power to grant stay of execution by means of any process of execution or to grant other form of relief from the legal consequences of any decision of the High Court for justifiable reason of a matter occurring after the judgment. The Court added that “The filing of an appeal is certainly one matter that may occur after a judgment and can ground an application for stay of execution or of proceedings under Or 43 Rule 11.” It may thus be said that the filing of an appeal against an executable judgment is a fulfilment of a condition precedent to the consideration of an application for stay of execution pending an appeal as was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ghana Airport Company Ltd v. Osei Ansong [Unreported; Civil Appeal No. H1/23/2014; 30th April 2014; CA] SETTLED PRINCIPLES TO BE CONSIDERED Per Order 45 Rule 11 of C. I. 47, the decision of the Court to grant an application or stay of execution is discretionary and “the Court may by order grant the relief, on such terms as it thinks just.” (Emphasis added) The principles to be considered in determining whether or not to grant an application for stay of execution have however been held by the Supreme Court to be well-settled. In NDK Financial Services Ltd. v. Yiadom Construction and Electrical Works Ltd [2007/08] SCGLR 93 the Supreme Court held as reported in head note 1 of the report that: “The principles for considering an application for stay of execution pending an appeal were well- settled” (Emphasis added) Similarly, in the case of Charles Osei Bonsu v. Dorothy Aboagye & Anor (2015) 81 GMJ 25, the Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 30th July 2014 also stated that the principle for considering an application for a stay of execution is well-settled. The Court referred to the cases of Livingstone Djokoto v. BBC Industrials [2012] 36 MLRG 107, NDK Financial Ltd. v. Yiadom Construction and Electrical Works Ltd. [2007/08] SCGLR 93, and Mensah v. Ghana Football Association and Others [1998-90] 1 GLR 1-13 and Joseph v. Jebeile and Another SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 7 of 19 (1963) 1 GLR 387-392 SC; and held that “the injunction must be shown to make the applicant’s appeal, if successful, nugatory”. In Livingstone Djokoto v. BBC Industrials Co. Ltd [2011] SCGLR 825 at 830, the Supreme Court held per Anin Yeboah JSC (as he then was) that: “In deciding applications for stay of execution, both trial court and an appellate court must carefully examine the judgment appealed against and the order or decree sought to be executed to consider whether the appeal would not be rendered nugatory should the court refuse it and the appellant wins on appeal… Secondly, the court must also consider the exceptional circumstances, which depend on the nature of the case… This court may in appropriate cases grant stay where balance of hardship will fall on the appellant.” (Emphasis added) At holding 2 of the report, guiding principles for the grant of stay of execution stated by the Supreme Court is reported as follows: (1) whether the appeal will not be rendered nugatory should stay be refused and the appellant won on appeal, (2) whether there are arguable points of law to be decided by the appellate court, (3) whether grant or refusal to grant would not occasion hardship on the appellant and (4) in applying those principles care should be taken not to determine any issue that might prejudice the substantive appeal. (Emphasis added) In the more recent case of Ogyeadom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI v. Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Anor [Civil Motion No J8/131/2019; 28 April 2020; SC] reported as Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 1090 at page 1109, the Supreme Court stated that the decision in Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v. Baker [1992] 4 ALL SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 8 of 19 ER 887 is of persuasive authority and at page 1129 of the report the Court quoted the dictum of Staughton LJ in Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v. Baker as follows: “Where an unsuccessful defendant seeks a stay of execution pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal, it is a legitimate ground for granting the Application that the defendant is able to satisfy the court that without a stay of execution he will be ruined and that he has an appeal which has some prospect of success.” (Emphasis added) ANALYSIS AND OPINION In the instant case, the Court finds that the Applicant has filed a notice of appeal dated 24th February 2023, a copy of which was attached to the affidavit as Exhibit AD 2. The condition precedent required for this Court to consider the present application has thus been satisfied. In determining whether or not to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant, and grant the present application, the Court relied on the settled principles and guidance provided in the above – cited decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore considered whether or not there are arguable points of law raised for determination by the appeal, whether or not the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution is issued before the determination of the appeal, and whether or not the Applicant has provided special circumstances which require that the application should be granted. ARGUABLE POINTS OF LAW RAISED FOR DETERMINATION ON APPEAL. The Court has considered the grounds of the appeal stated in the Notice of Appeal – Exhibit AD 2 and notes that the Applicant states that the trial judge erred in law. The particulars of the error are stated in the grounds of appeal. The Applicant relies on the Notice of Appeal, Exhibit AD 2 and states that the Appeal has a good chance of success. The Respondents on the other hand maintain that there is no error in law in the judgment, the judgment is well-reasoned and of sound law. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 9 of 19 The Court notes that an appeal is a re-hearing and in the case of Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra) the Court granted the application for stay of execution when it found that “If the facts deposed to in the affidavit …in support of the application for stay of execution are proved to be true then their existence at the trial would have prevented the judgment being given in favor of the plaintiff.” After a careful consideration of the errors of law particularized and stated by the Applicant as the grounds of appeal attached to the affidavit in support of the application as “Exhibit AD 2”, this Court is of the considered opinion that if there are indeed errors of law as particularized, then as held by the Supreme Court in its Ruling delivered by his Lordship Gbadegbe JSC in the case of Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra), their existence would have prevented the judgment being given in favor of the Applicant, and there may be some prospects of success of the Appeal. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY SHOULD THE COURT REFUSE THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICANT WIN ON APPEAL It is the crux of the Applicant’s case that he currently resides in the property which is the subject of the dispute with his dependents; that the subject property is his only accommodation and a successful appeal will be rendered nugatory if the present application is refused and the Respondents recover possession of the property from him in executing the judgment of the Court. The Court notes that from the authorities on the matter, the primary consideration in determining whether or not to grant an application is whether or not the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the application is refused and the appeal is successful. In Joseph v. Jebeile and Another (1963) 1 GLR 387-392 SC, the Supreme Court held that: “[I]t is the paramount duty of a court to which an application for stay of execution pending appeal is made to see that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory”. (Emphasis added) SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 10 of 19 Similarly, in Mensah v. Ghana Football Association and Others (1998-90) 1 GLR 1-13. SC, the Supreme Court held that: “If the enforcement would make the appeal, if successful, nugatory then the proper order to make was one staying execution.” To ascertain whether or not the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the present application is refused, the Court considered that the Applicant assumed the initial burden to establish his claim on the balance of probabilities that he lives in the subject property with his dependents and that the appeal if successful would be rendered nugatory if he is evicted by the Respondents pending the determination of the appeal. The Court however found that other than the mere statement in the affidavits in support of the application, the Applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim that the subject property is his only property or that he currently lives in same with his dependents. The Court further considered the processes filed in the case which the Applicant referred to in support of his application and found especially from the judgment attached as Exhibit AD 1 that during the trial the Applicant stated in his Witness Statement admitted as his evidence in chief that he resided in the property in dispute. In the 2nd Plaintiff’s Witness Statement admitted in evidence during the trial, she stated that the Applicant had moved her out of the subject property and was unlawfully occupying same. The Court also considered the processes filed in the most recent past, after judgment, for it was of the opinion that they would be of better assistance in ascertaining the current state of affairs as to whether or not the Applicant and his dependents currently reside in the subject property. The Court found that as stated in their affidavit in opposition to the present application, the Applicant was not in possession of the property when the application for writ of possession to issue was served. The record of the Court relied on by the Respondents indicate that the Applicant could not be served personally for the reason that in a report of a search dated 23rd SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 11 of 19 May 2023, it was stated that attempts at personal service on the Applicant were unsuccessful for the Applicant was nowhere to be found. The process was thus served on the Applicant by substituted service. On the balance, the Court finds that the claim by the Respondents that currently the Applicant does not reside in the subject property is more probable than that of the Applicant that he currently resides in the property with his dependents. The Court therefore finds that there is no evidence that the Applicant and his dependents are presently in occupation of the subject-property and they have no other accommodation. The basis of the Applicant’s claim that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the Respondent executes the judgment and recovers possession of the subject property has not been made out. Further, a review of the authorities on the matter also indicate that the cases in which the Courts have held that an appeal if successful would be rendered nugatory are cases in which there is a likelihood that the property which is the subject of the dispute may be lost or sold if the application for stay of execution is refused. Thus, in the case of Eboe v Eboe (supra) cited with approval in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in The Republic v High Court (Criminal Division 9), Accra, Exparte: Ecobank Ghana Limited, and Origin 8 and another as Interested Parties (supra,) the Court considered that if the property “is sold before determination of the suit, his appeal would be rendered nugatory, therefore stay of execution would be granted.” Similarly, in the case of NDK Financial v. Yiadom, (supra) an application for stay of execution was granted where the Court found that not to do so would disrupt an ongoing “national” football tournament. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 12 of 19 In the instant case, it is not the case of the Applicant that the subject property will be lost, disposed off or destroyed pending the determination of the appeal if the stay of execution is not granted. Indeed, in opposing the application, the Respondents stated that the subject property will be available for the Applicant to recover in the event that the present application is refused and the appeal is successful. The Court is therefore of the considered opinion that even if the Applicant and his dependents were currently in occupation of the subject property, it would not be sufficient reason for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the present application is refused and the Respondents recover possession pending the determination of the appeal. The Court also considered that in the case of NDK Financial Services Ltd. v. Yiadom Construction and Electrical Works Ltd (supra) the Supreme Court held as reported in head note 1 of the report that: “The principles for considering an application for stay of execution pending an appeal were well-settled: the main principle adopted by the courts is what the position of the appellant would be if the judgment were to be enforced and the appeal is successful…In effect the essential point in considering such applications was whether the applicant would be returned to the status quo ante should the appeal succeed… Another determining principle was which of the parties would suffer greater hardship should the application be granted or refused.” (Emphasis added) The Court is of the considered opinion that even if the Applicant is currently in occupation of the subject property, as submitted by Counsel for the Respondents, the Applicant can be returned to the status quo ante if the appeal succeeds. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 13 of 19 It is the further case of the Applicant as stated in the affidavit in support of the application that the claim that he and his dependents currently reside in the subject property is a special circumstance to be considered by the Court. In the case of Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex-Parte: Kumoji [2000] SC GLR. 211, Kpegah, J. S. C delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court stated with regard to stay of execution thus: Whether a judge will order a stay of execution in a particular case must depend upon the special circumstances of that case. The discretion is a judicial one which must be judiciously exercised. Special circumstances must always be shown that it is inexpedient to enforce the judgment in order to induce the court to grant a stay of execution. (Emphasis added) In their recent decision in the case of The Republic v. High Court (Criminal Division 9), Accra, Exparte: Ecobank Ghana Limited, and Origin 8 and another as Interested Parties (supra) the Supreme Court affirmed the principles stated in the above – mentioned case and cited with approval the decision of Ollennu J. in Eboe v Eboe [1961] 1 GLR 432 at 434 where it was stated that: “The court will grant a stay where the special circumstances of the case require that it should be granted.” In view of the analysis above, and the finding of the Court that the Applicant and her dependents do not currently reside in the subject property, the Court finds that no special circumstances have been presented. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 14 of 19 With regard to the claim by the Applicant contained in the supplementary affidavit in support of the application, that there is another judgment in respect of the subject property and the status quo should be maintained, the Court considered that the subject property is described in the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim filed on 16th February 2021 as a three-bedroom house, situate within the 2nd Defendant’s development at Mile 7, Achimota, Accra. From the Entry of Judgment relied on by the Applicant and marked as Exhibit AD1A, the Court noted that the 2nd Defendant herein is not a party to Suit No. LD/0161/2015 and the subject property in Suit No. LD/0161/2015 is stated to be property measuring approximately 4.053 acres, being parcel No. 38, Block 7, section 158 situate at Achimota in the Greater Accra Region. As submitted by Counsel for the Respondents, the Court finds that there is no indication from the evidence provided by the Applicant that the subject matter of Suit No. LD/0161/2015 and that of the present case are the same. The Court is therefore not satisfied that any special circumstance has been demonstrated by the Applicant. BALANCE OF HARDSHIP The Applicant added that he will suffer hardship if the Respondent takes possession of the subject property and he is successful on appeal. As held in the case of Livingstone Djokoto v. BBC Industrials Co. Ltd (supra), the balance of hardship “may be considered in appropriate cases to grant stay where balance of hardship will fall on the appellant.” The Court finds that for all the reasons provided above, this is not an appropriate case for the Court to consider the balance of hardship. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 15 of 19 CONCLUSION In the case of Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI (supra), the Supreme Court reviewed the authorities on the matter and cited with approval the case of Linotype- Hell Finances Ltd v Baker [1992] 4 All ER 887, which it stated to be of persuasive authority, that: “… It seems to me that, if a defendant can say that without a stay of execution he will be ruined and that he has an appeal which has some prospect of success, that is a legitimate ground for granting a stay of execution.” This Court is of the considered opinion that from the above-cited authority, the Applicant for an order for stay of execution should be able to satisfy the Court that the Appeal has some prospect of success “and” also that without a stay of execution he will be ruined. From the analysis above, this Court finds that whilst the Applicant provided some grounds which if established on appeal may provide some prospect of success, the Applicant did not satisfy the Court that without a stay of execution he well be ruined, or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory. In the absence of evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the present application is refused, the Court considers that on the basis of all the authorities cited above, the present application should be refused. For all of the above stated reasons, I have little inclination to deprive the Respondents of their victory as I am not persuaded that a case has been made for this Court to exercise its discretion in the Applicant’s favour. SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 16 of 19 The Application for stay of execution of the Judgment of this Court dated 30th November 2023 pending the determination of the Appeal filed by the Applicant is hereby refused. Costs of GH¢3,000 is awarded in favour of the Respondent against the Applicant having regard to Order 74 of C. I. 47. [SGD] NABEELA NAEEMA WAHAB J. (MS.) (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) COUNSEL: 1. MICHAEL OSEI BAGYINA WITH AWURA KONADU KUSI HOLDING BRIEF OF KWAME AMANKWAH TWUM FOR THE DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT- DEBTOR/APPLICANT - PRESENT 2. PHILIP JIMANOR FOR PLAINTIFFS /JUDGMENT- CREDITORS/ RESPONDENTS - PRESENT CASES REFERRED TO: 1. Asare v. Asomani [2007] GHACA 2. Ogyeadom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI v. Ghana Telecommunications Co. Ltd & Anor [Civil Motion No J8/131/2019] SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 17 of 19 3. Ghana Telecommunications Co Ltd & Another v Atta VI [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 1090 4. London Permanent Benefit Society v. De Buer [1968] 1 ALL ER 372 5. The Republic v. High Court (Criminal Division 9), Accra, Ex Parte Ecobank [Unreported; Civil Motion No. J5/10/2022; 18 January 2022] 6. Djokoto & Amissah v. BBC Industrials Co. (Ghana) Ltd. & City Express Bus Services Ltd [2011] 2 SCGLR 825 7. Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v. Baker [1992] 4 ALL ER 887 8. Charles Osei Bonsu v. Dorothy Aboagye & Anor (2015) 81 GMJ 25, 9. Livingstone Djokoto v. BBC Industrials [2012] 36 MLRG 107 10. NDK Financial Ltd. v. Yiadom Construction & Electrical Works Ltd. [2007/08] SCGLR 11. Mensah v. Ghana Football Association & Ors [1998-90] 1 GLR 1-13 12. Joseph v. Jebeile & Anor (1963) 1 GLR 387-392 SC 13. Livingstone Djokoto v. BBC Industrials Co. Ltd [2011] SCGLR 825 at 830 14. The Republic v. High Court (Criminal Division 9), Accra, Ex parte: Ecobank Ghana Limited [Civil Motion No. J5/10/2022; 18 January 2022] 15. Eboe v. Eboe [1961] 1 GLR 432 at 434 SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 18 of 19 16. Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex-Parte: Kumoji [2000] SCGLR 211 SUIT NO: LD/0160/2017 –Joseph Bernard Gold & Anor vrs Chokosi Okumu & Anor Page 19 of 19