Amidu Vrs Attorney-general and Others [2018] GHASC 3 (31 January 2018)

Amidu Vrs Attorney-general and Others [2018] GHASC 3 (31 January 2018)

The application fails because the order for oral examination does not infringe the applicant's right to privacy, and the procedure under Order 46 rule 2 was properly invoked to address difficulties in enforcing the judgment. The oral examination is a lawful and necessary process to facilitate execution of the judgment.

Citation
[2018] GHASC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Martin Alamisi Amidu; 1st Defendant/respondent: The Attorney-General; 2nd Defendant: Waterville Holdings (BVI) Ltd.; 3rd Defendant/applicant: Alfred Agbesi Woyome
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion / Ruling on Application to Reverse Orders for Oral Examination of Judgment Debtor
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Judgments, Oral Examination of Judgment Debtor, Right to Privacy, Interpretation of Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Enforcement of Judgments Oral Examination of Judgment Debtor Right to Privacy Interpretation of Court Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Alamisi Amidu

Plaintiff

The Attorney-General

1st Defendant/respondent

Waterville Holdings (BVI) Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Alfred Agbesi Woyome

3rd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion / Ruling on Application to Reverse Orders for Oral Examination of Judgment Debtor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral examination order infringes the applicant's constitutional right to privacy
  2. 2 Whether the invocation of Order 46 rule 2 of C.I. 47 was appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because the order for oral examination does not infringe the applicant's right to privacy, and the procedure under Order 46 rule 2 was properly invoked to address difficulties in enforcing the judgment. The oral examination is a lawful and necessary process to facilitate execution of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to reverse the orders for oral examination is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The oral examination of the applicant is to continue.