ADM COCOA GHANA LIMITED v. INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO (MS) JSC
- ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC
- GBADEGBE JSC
- BENIN JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Judgments
- Appellate Review
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal for a stay of execution of a US$2 million judgment. The court found that the application did not meet the exceptional criteria outlined in previous cases and emphasized the need for stricter preconditions for such stays. The judgment underscores the balance between preserving the rights of judgment debtors and creditors.
RULING
ATUGUBA JSC:
The brief facts of this application are that a judgment for US$2 million damages was given by the High Court in favour of the respondent against the applicant. Upon the transmission of the record of appeal to the Court of Appeal the applicant unsuccessfully thereat applied for a stay of execution of the said judgment pending the determination of the appeal by the court of Appeal. Having appealed to this court against the said refusal the applicant again applied unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution. The course of events from that stage is best captured in paragraphs 9 to 17 of the applicant’s affidavit in support of its present application before this court.
They are as follows:
“9. That pending the determination of the Interlocutory Appeal to this Court, the Applicant filed an Application before the Court of Appeal seeking to suspend any steps on the Entry of Judgment by the Plaintiff/Respondent pending the determination of the Interlocutory Appeal (Exhibit KBA “4”)
10. that on the 25th of February, 2015 the Court of Appeal Coram, Marfo Sau J.A. (Presiding), Aduamah Osei J.A. and L. L. Mensah J.A. heard the Application and dismissed same on the ground that the decision of the Court of Appeal (Exhibit KBA “2”) was binding upon them and therefore the appropriate place for the Application is the Supreme Court. The Applicant has since applied for the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Attached and marked as Exhibit “KBA 5” is evidence of same.
11. That in the circumstances, this Application is thus a repeat Application.
12. That the Applicant is of the respectful position that the “nugatory test” adopted by the Court of Appeal in Exhibit KBA “3” did not take into consideration the clear fact that the Respondent’s position that it was a going concern capable of refunding the Judgment debt in the event that the Applicant succeeded in the Appeal, was a bald claim for there was nothing supportive of same.
13. That at all material times, the issue between the parties was whether or not the warehouse floor had failed because of inferior materials and workmanship (Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s contention) or because the Plaintiff/Respondent had allowed trucks to come into the warehouse without regard to the concrete strength of the warehouse floor. (Defendant/Appellant/Applicant’s contention.)
14. That the High Court awarded the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent the sum of Two Million United States Dollars (US$