GH - ANDREWS BOAKYE SARPONG VS KOFI DZANTA & ORS

This is the ruling in respect of the Motion on Notice for Stay of Execution pending Appeal filed on 2nd September 2016 for an order to stay the execution of a judgment delivered by this Court on 10th June 2016. The grounds canvassed for the judgment to be stayed are two. They are contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit in support as follows:

“8. That I state that the Appeal has a good chance of success and if the judgment is not stayed the plaintiff… would take steps that would injure the interest of the 1st defendant/appellant/applicant which cannot be adequately compensated for if the appeal is successful.

9. That I am also advised and verily believe same to be true that the plaintiff… may also create third party rights in the land which may complicate the recovery of the land in dispute should the appellants succeed in the appeal.”

The Plaintiff/Judgment/creditor/Respondent opposed the application and his grounds are contained in paragraphs 5 to 11 as follows:

“5. I am advised and I verily believe same to be true that the instant application by the Applicants does not raise any serious question(s) of law to invest this Court with power to grant a stay of execution.

6. I am advised and I verily believe same to be true that the Applicant has not demonstrated or raised exceptional circumstances to warrant a stay of execution of the judgment and that the matters deposed to in the Applicants’ affidavit have been thoroughly examined by this Court.

7. As the successful party in the dispute before this Court, it is wrongful and indeed reprehensible for the Applicant to be dictating how I should enforce the judgment on mere suspicion that the enforcement of the judgment has the potential of creating third party rights.

8. The grant of stay of execution by this Court will cause grave injustice to me after having labored for a considerable period of time in seeking justice through the court to recover possession of the subject matter of the dispute.

9. I am advised and I verily believe same to be true that on balance, I will suffer untold hardship if this Court stays execution of the well-researched and unassailable judgment of this Court.

10. The Applicants have not shown by their application that in the unlikely event that the appeal succeeded, that judgment would be rendered nugatory.

11. The sole purpose of the instant application by the Applicants is to scuttle my efforts at enjoying the fruits of my victory and in the main is intend

The Plaintiff/Judgment/creditor/Respondent opposed the application and his grounds are contained in paragraphs 5 to 11 as follows:

9. I am advised and I verily believe same to be true that on balance, I will suffer untold hardship if this Court stays execution of the well-researched and unassailable judgment of this Court.

10. The Applicants have not shown by their application that in the unlikely event that the appeal succeeded, that judgment would be rendered nugatory.

11. The sole purpose of the instant application by the Applicants is to scuttle my efforts at enjoying the fruits of my victory and in the main is intend

ANDREWS BOAKYE SARPONG VS KOFI DZANTA & ORS

Areas of Law

RULING