AGRICATTLE LAKESIDE ESTATE LIMITED vs DR. HENRY BRONI AMPONSAH & ANOR.
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEX OWUSU-OFORI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On August 25, 2022, First Defendant, a director of Second Defendant, applied for a stay of execution of the courts July 20, 2022 judgment, pending appeal. The underlying dispute concerned 53.97 acres that Plaintiff had been induced to regularize in Second Defendants name after a purchase from the Katamanso Stool; Second Defendant later used the regularized title to secure a US$3 million loan from Ecobank but failed agreed conditions. Plaintiff alleged the true lease was for 20 acres and the 53.97-acre lease carried a forged signature. Before hearing, Second Defendant consented, surrendered the 53.97 acres, and purchased 10 acres where its developments stand. First Defendant counterclaimed for title to 10 acres or US$700,000, damages, an injunction, and costs, but had no title documents. Opposing the stay, Plaintiff and Second Defendant argued no special or exceptional circumstances and that the application sought to delay enforcement. The court agreed, found no such circumstances, dismissed the stay application, and awarded GH10,000 costs.
The 1st Defendant/Appellant/Applicant on the 25th day of August 2022 brought the instant application for Stay of Execution of the judgment delivered by the Court dated 20th July 2022.
This Court on the 7th day of November, 2022 after listening to the application dismissed same as it was without merit and awarded cost of GH¢10,000 against the 1st Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant and indicated to assign reasons for dismissing the application within (14) days and I proceed to do same.
The 1st Defendant/Applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the application stated that considering the facts and circumstances of the case such as the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, the Court erred in accepting and giving weight to the Terms of Settlement filed by the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant which were clearly unconscionable, contrived and a total sham.
That the Court was obliged but failed to consider and evaluate the totality of his evidence in support of his case, such as the documentary evidence of the Pioneer Directors and Managers of the 2nd Defendant who were directly involved in the acquisition of the lands the subject matter of dispute.
That the Court erred in holding that he is liable for the payment of US¢477,500.00 when the overwhelming evidence on record is that the Plaintiff did not seek any relief for the payment of any amount of money and the Katamanso Stool and its representatives did not demand payment for the land because the 1st Defendant had already paid them on behalf of the 2nd Defendant.
That, land is unique and its loss cannot be compensated with money and if the application for Stay of Execution is refused, his loss would be irreparable since there would be no land for him in the most likely even of winning his appeal.
That both Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant failed to meet the standard of proof as a result of the paucity of evidence they adduced against 1st Defendant.
It is therefore his prayer that the judgment obtained against him should be stayed pending the appeal.
The Plaintiff in its affidavit filed opposing the application deposed that the 1st Defendant’s application for Stay of Execution pending an appeal is vexatious and lacks merit.
That he had shown no special circumstances to warrant the grant of the application.
That the Plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants to recover 53.97 acres of Plaintiff’s land which Plaintiff was fraudulently misled to regularize in favour and in the name of 2nd Defen