RULING
AGYEMANG JA:-
This is a ruling in respect of an application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court Accra delivered on the 18th of January 2015.
The application is supported by a nineteen-paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Ravi Tiwariwho described himself as a Director of defendant appellant/applicant (referred to hereafter as the applicant) with the requisite consent of the applicant to depose to matters on its behalf. According to the said deponent, the applicant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below which was entered against it in breach of the rules of natural justice when the learned trial judge allegedly failed to give the applicant the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff on his evidence or for the applicant to open its defence. It was deposed that the applicant failed to attend court when the case was called for hearing of the 27th of January 2015 and that when the court adjourned for judgment an application by the applicant to arrest the court’s judgment and for the applicant to be heard was not heard.
The applicant who claimed that it had a good defence to the suit alleges that he has been prevented form defending the suit and prosecuting his counterclaim by the learned trial judge who shut the door in its face. By reason of the alleged breach of natural justice due to the want of fair hearing, the deponent alleged that the appeal had a good chance of success.
According to the deponent, in the likely event of a successful appeal, same would be rendered nugatory as the plaintiff/respondent/respondent (respondent) who was resident outside the jurisdiction: in Lome, Togo, might not be in a position to refund the judgment debt paid to him. On the other hand, the applicant described as a solid business entity would be able to pay the judgment debt in the event of an unsuccessful appeal.
Arguing the motion, learned counsel for the applicant who repeated the said matters deposed to cited Dzokoto&Amissah v. BBC Industrials Company Ltd and City Express Bus Ltd 2011 2 SCGLR 825Holding 1 to argue that the balance of hardship lay with the applicant rather than on the respondent who having lost his job in Ghana had gone to live in Togo and might not be able to refund the judgemnt debt once it was paid to him.
In a twenty-three paragraph affidavit in opposition as well as a nine-paragraph supplementary affidavit, one George OwusuAnsah who described himself as a lawyer in the firm of lawyers representing th
