Certificate of purchase at an execution sale as evidence of title
A certificate of purchase is prima facie evidence of title, its validity is not put into issue by its mere production in evidence in a case. There were no pleadings in the local court, and the second defendant concealed from the plaintiff the fact that he relied upon a certificate of purchase for his entry upon the land. As earlier observed, it was not until the trial was actually in progress, that he hinted a purchase, and not until he actually got into the witness box that he came out openly with the alleged certificate of purchase. It is true that the legality might have been put in issue at that late stage in the former suit at which it was tendered; but certainly it was not actually put in issue.
Once a judgment creditor has commenced execution by one form of process to enforce the decree in his favour and has obtained an order of the court in respect of that process, he cannot resort to a different form of process of execution without first obtaining an order of the court in that regard.
Duty of a lower court directed by the Supreme Court to enforce its judgment
Ordinarily, when the Supreme Court, as the final appellate Court, orders a lower Court to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court, the business of the said lower Court is to carry out the orders of the Supreme Court by enforcing the said judgment upon application by the party in whose favour the judgment was rendered. It follows that when this Court made the orders of 28th July 2021, all that the High Court needed to do, upon the filing of the application for garnishee, was to observe due process in accordance with the Rules of Court and enforce the said judgment of the Supreme Court.
Effect of execution issued in breach of a statutory stay
By virtue of that regulation the giving of notice of appeal operates as a statutory stay of execution of the judgment. The order for execution to proceed made by the trial local court in contravention of that statutory prohibition is therefore indefensible; it is without jurisdiction and is therefore void ab initio and so is the sale allegedly made in pursuance of the illegal writ of fi. fa.
Irregular sale in execution distinguished from an illegal sale
Here it must be pointed out that issues raised in complaint that a sale in execution was irregularly conducted are quite different from those in a claim that the sale is illegal; where there are irregularities in the conduct of the sale, the sale is voidable and a special remedy is provided in the procedure regulations for setting the same aside; if the complaint were as to irregularity, the relevant procedure rules would be rules 101 and 103 of the Native Courts (Ashanti) Procedure Rules7; on the other hand, a sale conducted without lawful authority is not merely irregular, it is illegal, null and void, and any rights exercised in pursuance of it are wrongful.
