US$28.5m judgment debt case adjourned

The court has adjourned to March 27, a case in which the State is challenging the alleged award of 28 million dollars to SWEATER and SOCKS as judgment debt.

Attorney General Marietta Brew Appiah Oppong is challenging the award. She had questioned the source of judgment debt award describing it as a scam on the basis that it was never awarded by any court of competent jurisdiction.

The hearing of the case continues next week.

The plaintiff, SWEATER and SOCKS, dragged the Attorney-General and seven occupants of its factory which was confiscated by the state through AFRC Decree 38 to court in 1994.

The other defendants in the case are the National Industrial Company, the African Bagg Company Limited, Madam Sophia’s Company, Poly Products Limited, Fay International Limited, United Waters Limited and Golden Tower Limited, all tenants of the plaintiff’s property.

It requested the court to declare that the true legal position now was that Sweater and Socks had not been confiscated and was, therefore, entitled to carry out its normal business operations.

The company also sought an order for the recovery of possession of the factory premises and all the machinery and or equipment thereof from the hold of the National Industrial Company.

On April 8, 2003, the High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice H. Inkumsah Abban, gave judgement in favour of the plaintiff for all the reliefs claimed.

The court held that the plaintiff's company was entitled to all its reliefs as endorsed, and in 2010 the plaintiff obtained leave of the court to recover possession of the factory premises and duly recovered possession.

Consequently, the plaintiff obtained a garnishee order nisi and garnishee order absolute on August 15, 2012 and September 12, 2012, respectively, ordering the BoG to pay the plaintiff the sum of US$28,595,600.

Following the grant of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and subsequent orders of the court and the failure of the BoG to pay the money, the plaintiff instituted the contempt proceedings against Dr Wampah.

However the state is arguing that the garnishee orders were born out of void procedures and orders and for that reason they were “null and void and of no effect and should be set aside”.

“Furthermore, the plaintiff, in its writ of summons and statement of claim, never made a claim for recovery of any sum of money or for damages, whether general or special,” the state has argued.

It also argued that the judgment of Justice Abban (Exhibit AG3) never made any orders for the recovery of money by the plaintiff from the 1st and 2nd defendants and that assuming without admitting that the ruling (Exhibit AG8) of Justice Ankumah was valid, the said ruling never ordered the payment of any money.

In a motion challenging the plaintiff, the Attorney-General’s Department is praying the High Court to set aside as void orders and proceedings of the High Court.