Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 24, 2014
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Judgment in this matter was delivered on 5th September 2014. One of the orders made in the judgment went as follows: To ascertain the quantum of indebtedness, an auditing firm to be agreed upon by the parties in consultation with the Registrar of this court is hereby appointed to work out the indebtedness based on the findings made in this judgment and submit a report to the court within 28 days of this Order.
The Registrar shall make available to the auditor, exhibits tendered by the parties.
Defendants shall bear the cost of the exercise.
The Defendants are currently before court praying the court to appoint Godwin Vladimir Azazu, a Chartered Accountant of the accounting firm UHY Godwinson to carry out the court’s order.
The Plaintiff is opposed to the instant application.
It has advanced the following arguments: 1. The court after giving judgment was functus officio and had no power to make the order for the appointment of an Auditor.
2. The order of the court for the appointment of an Auditor was subject to agreement between the parties to the dispute.
The parties had not agreed upon the appointment of an Auditor.
3. The Plaintiff being dissatisfied with the judgment had since appealed against same.
The issue before court is whether or not the instant application should be upheld? The Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor has appealed against the Judgment delivered on 5th September 2014. However, an appeal does not apply as a stay of execution.
That a judgment has been appealed against is no grounds for refusal to comply with a court order.
Was the court functus officio and barred from making the instant order? In the Republic v. High Court (Fast Track) Division, Accra; Ex parte State Housing Company Ltd No. 2 Koranteng-Amoako (Interested Party) (2009) SCGLR 185 the court had to determine whether or not the judge having pronounced final judgment on 25th October 2007 in favour of the Plaintiff was functus officio and therefore could not cause any further evidence to be led by the Plaintiff to state her claim on 6th February 2008. The court delivered itself on this issue at page 194 thus: In the instant case, the judge clearly had jurisdiction to take further evidence before ruling on the case finally.
It was indeed obvious from her ruling of 25th October 2007 that the decision was not a final but an interlocutory judgment. …. In our view, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed “final” whilst an “interlocutory”
AI Generated Summary
Following a 5 September 2014 High Court judgment in Accra Brewery Limited v. Thess Pee Company Limited & Another, the court ordered the parties to appoint, within 28 days and in consultation with the Registrar, an auditing firm to ascertain the quantum of indebtedness. The Defendants sought appointment of Godwin Vladimir Azazu of UHY Godwinson and wrote to the Plaintiff seeking agreement, but Accra Brewery opposed, arguing the court was functus officio and noting it had appealed. The High Court rejected these objections, explaining that the earlier order was interlocutory as it directed how rights would be worked out, so the court retained jurisdiction. The court emphasized that an appeal does not stay execution, directed the parties to agree by 14 December 2014 or the Registrar to appoint by 21 December 2014, required Defendants to bear audit fees, and awarded GH a21,000 costs against the Plaintiff.