MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
The High Court in Accra in the case of SAMUEL NYARKO ADJIN v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR [TLP-HC-2026-24] has dismissed a suit brought by Samuel Nyarko Adjin against the Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police over the auction of his Hyundai Mighty Truck, ruling that although the plaintiff alleged the police obtained a court order through misrepresentation, he failed to challenge that order through the appropriate legal process before commencing the action.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Francis Obiri, sitting as an additional High Court judge, underscores the long-established legal principle that court orders remain valid and enforceable until they are set aside by a competent court, regardless of allegations that they were wrongly obtained.
Background
According to the plaintiff, he imported a Hyundai Mighty Truck in 2007 for his haulage business and registered it with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) in January 2008. In August 2018, while being operated by his newly employed driver, the vehicle was stopped by officers of the Motor Traffic and Transport Department (MTTD) near the Achimota Roundabout and escorted to the Tesano Police Station.
The plaintiff claimed the police seized the vehicle's ignition keys after demanding money from the driver and subsequently refused repeated requests to release the truck, despite the production of all requested documents. He further alleged that the vehicle remained at the police station for several months, during which its battery was removed and its condition deteriorated.
The plaintiff maintained that neither he nor his driver was investigated for any criminal offence, charged before a court, or informed that the vehicle would be auctioned. He later discovered that the police had obtained an ex parte order from the District Court at Adjabeng authorising the auction of several allegedly abandoned vehicles, including his truck, after representing that they had been involved in robbery-related offences and abandoned by their owners.
According to the plaintiff, this representation was false because his truck had never been used in the commission of any crime, had not been abandoned, and had been the subject of several unsuccessful attempts by him to recover it from the police station. Following the auction, ownership of the truck was transferred to the successful bidder, Salifu Yakubu, through the DVLA. The plaintiff consequently sought compensation for the truck's replacement value, damages for loss of use calculated at GHS500 per day, and declarations that the police acted unlawfully.
1st Aug, 2026
1st Apr, 2024
13th Mar, 2024
18th Oct, 2023
Police Defence
The defendants disputed the plaintiff's account, insisting that the vehicle was lawfully detained after traffic officers observed that it lacked mandatory roadworthiness and insurance stickers, retro reflectors, and that the driver could not immediately produce either the required certificates or his driver's licence. Consequently, the truck was escorted to the Tesano Police Station on suspicion of road traffic offences.
The police further explained that, as part of a nationwide decongestion exercise, stations were instructed to seek court orders to dispose of vehicles abandoned for more than six months. According to their evidence, public announcements were made to encourage owners to retrieve their vehicles before an application was filed in the District Court for authority to auction the unclaimed vehicles. The defendants also stated that efforts were made to trace owners through the DVLA before the auction proceeded.
They maintained that the auction was conducted lawfully pursuant to a valid court order, advertised in the Ghanaian Times, and carried out after an assessment by Intercity STC Coaches Limited, which valued the plaintiff's truck at GHS1,500 due to its poor condition.
Court's Findings
Justice Obiri identified the central issue as whether the disposal of the plaintiff's vehicle was proper. While acknowledging that the plaintiff originally owned the truck, the court held that ownership itself was never in dispute. Rather, the decisive question was the legal effect of the District Court's order authorising the auction.
The court observed that the plaintiff himself had tendered the District Court order and related documents into evidence. Since there was no indication that the order had ever been set aside or vacated, the High Court held that it was presumed to have been lawfully made and remained binding on all parties.
Justice Obiri emphasised that even if the plaintiff believed the order had been procured through misrepresentation, the proper course was first to apply to set aside the District Court's order or institute proceedings specifically seeking its nullification. Instead, the plaintiff sought damages while leaving the underlying order inta
The court held that because the auction was carried out under a subsisting judicial order, it lacked jurisdiction to examine the merits of the plaintiff's claims. Without first overturning that order, the plaintiff's cause of action had not properly accrued.
The judge also criticised the plaintiff's pleadings as unnecessarily lengthy, noting that prolix pleadings can amount to an abuse of court process because they waste judicial time and obscure the real issues in dispute.
No room for judicial sympathy
Even though Justice Obiri expressed sympathy for the plaintiff's predicament, he stressed that judicial sympathy cannot replace settled legal principles. Since the District Court's order remained valid and had never been challenged through the proper legal procedure, the plaintiff's action could not succeed.
The High Court accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety and made no order as to costs.
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe