GEORGE TETTEH QUAYE vs. CHAINA JIANGSU JIANDA CONSTRUCTION, INC AND 2 ORS AND IN THE MATTER OF NOTICE OF CLAIM BY ATTACHY CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD [2020]DLHC8722

GEORGE TETTEH QUAYE vs. CHAINA JIANGSU JIANDA CONSTRUCTION, INC AND 2 ORS AND I... [2020]DLHC8722

Date	2020-02-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. INTS /1/2017
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC8722

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI HIGH COURT JUDGE

ADJEI BEDIAKO FOR CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT

HANSEN KODUAH FOR PLIANTIFF/APPLICANT

[2020]DLHC8722
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >GEORGE TETTEH QUAYE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHAINA JIANGSU JIANDA (DEFENDANTS) CONSTRUCTION,
INC AND 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>IN THE MATTER OF NOTICE OF
CLAIM BY ATTACHY CONSTRUCTION<o:p></o:p>CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. INTS /1/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ADJEI BEDIAKO
FOR CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HANSEN KODUAH FOR PLIANTIFF/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI, HIGH COURT JUDGE<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On
17th December 2019, counsel for plaintiff/applicant hereinafter
called the applicant, filed the instant application praying the court for “an
order dismissing the claimant Interpleader suit on the compendium ground that
the High Court differently constituted entered final judgment in favour of the
applicant dated the 31st day of May 2017 specifically for the two
trucks and therefore the interpleader suit is not the appropriate proceedings
to be issued challenging its judgment aforesaid and on the grounds more
particularly set out in the supporting affidavit”.<o:p></o:p>The
motion is supported by affidavit deposed to by one Douglas Osei Owusu with
exhibits attached thereto.<o:p></o:p>I
wish to quote the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit in this ruling.<o:p></o:p>7. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
I wish to state that based on the authorities, Interpleader Suit was not the
appropriate relief or remedy the claimant should have sought from the court
once the court had entered final judgment over the trucks.<o:p></o:p>8. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the trucks were not attached in execution but judgment was entered specifically
for them and therefore the court shall not have jurisdiction even to entertain
the interpleader suit.<o:p></o:p>9. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
I am legally advised and verily believe same to be true that, the interpleader
suit was a nullity since the trucks were not attached so to give rise to Order
48 of CI 47.<o:p></o:p>10. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the recommended procedure should have been a writ of summons for determining
his title and not interpleader summons.<o:p></o:p>11. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
in the premises, I pray that, the interpleader suit be dismissed and for an
order releasing the trucks to the applicant who has final judgment in his
favour. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The claimant opposed the application by filing affidavit in opposition
on 19th December 2019. I wish to quote the relevant paragraphs of
the affidavit in this ruling.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
That I have been advised by counsel and I verily believe the same to be true
that, per the amended notice of the Claimant filed on 23rd July 2019,
the Claimant indicated that, it was the owner of Howo sinotruck Truck with
registration number AS 4540-10; consequently, the substratum of the instant
application that the Claimant challenged the judgment of the Honourable Court
is non-existent as a result of which the prayer on the motion paper is
mistaken.<o:p></o:p>8.
That I have been advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that, no
matter the type or nature of judgment a person obtains, the only means by which
the purported judgment-creditor can enforce that judgment is by means of
execution.<o:p></o:p>11. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
I have been advised by Counsel and verily believe the same to be true that, because
the trucks herein were attached in an execution process as per exhibits ‘B’ and
‘C’ herein; the only procedurally legal means of challenging the same is an
interpleader</main>