|
R U L I N G
This ruling is in respect of an
application by Afrotropic Cocoa
Processing Company Limited
praying this court for an order
for stay of execution of various
judgments obtained by three
banks namely, Merchant Bank
(Ghana) Limited in Suit No.
AB157/2010; Barclays Bank
(Ghana) Limited in Suit No.
AB92/2011; and Stanbic Bank
(Ghana) Limited in Suit No.
AB111/2011.
Before examining the merits or
otherwise of this application I
would state the relevant
antecedents of these judgments
to put the application in
context.
The Applicant herein applied for
and was granted various
financial facilities by the
three banks mentioned above and
Intercontinental Bank (Ghana)
Limited at various times. As
security for the said facilities
the Applicant executed a Pari
Passu Mortgage Debenture on 10th
November, 2009 in favour of the
four banks. The Applicant
subsequently defaulted in paying
the facilities and the three
banks mentioned above instituted
separate court actions against
it and obtained judgments. The
various judgment debts are as
follows:-
(a) Merchant
Bank
- US$1,537,86.01
(b) Barclays
Bank
- US$6,402,135.39
(C) Stanbic
Bank
-
US$6,706,236.18
In addition interest continues
to run on these judgment –
debts. Intercontinental Bank
facility also remains unpaid.
All the above creditors have
thus taken steps to enforce the
mortgage deed as a valuer was
appointed who valued the
properties mortgaged to defray
if not all but part of the
facilities. This prompted the
Applicant to bring the instant
application.
The only ground in support of
the application is that the
Applicant is a going concern and
if the banks levy execution on
the assets of the Applicant it
will suffer irreparable damages
as it will lead to the total
collapse of the Company and the
layoff of about 400 workers.
The banks oppose the application
stating that the Applicant’s
application if granted would
deny the banks their rights to
recover their facilities.
The banks did not grant the
facilities to the Applicant as
“Father Christmas” gifts. That
is the more reason why they got
the facilities secured by way of
the mortgage debenture. The
facilities granted the Applicant
are deposits by the banks’
customers who would be expecting
the refund of their money and
profits. So the customers would
have more legitimate claims for
their money and if deprived
would suffer more hardship than
the Applicant and its workers.
For the above reasons I am
unable to exercise my discretion
in favour of the Applicant. The
application is therefore
dismissed.
COUNSEL
1. Mr. Daniel Kuduadza
for Applicant
2. Mr. Andrew Daniels
and Mary Agyekum for the
Respondents.
(SGD.) UUTER PAUL DERY
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
mc/@
|
