ANTHONIO OLIMPIO & ORS v. GIOVANN ANTONELI & BIGLEBB CONSTRUCTION & CRUSHING LTD
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant sought relief from the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal and a stay of execution regarding an order for interim preservation of property. The initial motions were denied by a single judge and subsequently by the full bench of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court also denied the applicant's motion, ruling that there were no special circumstances warranting special leave and that the applicant did not demonstrate wrongful exercise of discretion by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
ANIN YEBOAH, JSC :
The applicant herein has moved this court praying for special leave to appeal and for stay of execution and/or suspension of execution pending the determination of this application. In an affidavit supporting this application sworn to by one Giovani Antonelli, the managing director of the 2nd applicant herein, it was deposed to that on the 27th of June 2016, the Court of Appeal; Coram: Marful-Sau JA sitting as a single judge dismissed the applicants’ motion for stay of execution and/or suspension of execution of the order of interim preservation of vehicles, machines and equipments handled down by the High court Accra dated the 26th of April 2016.
The applicant felt aggrieved by that decision of the single judge and filed a motion to discharge the order of the single judge.
The Court of Appeal on 20/11/2016 after hearing the parties dismissed the application and affirmed the single judge’s ruling.
The applicant has mounted this application for special leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal. In his affidavit in support of this application, the deponent in paragraphs 10-13 inclusive, has deposed to certain facts which should influence this court in this ruling. For a more detailed record I reproduce the said paragraph:
“10. I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true, that this case is a novelty in terms of pronouncement on the law relating to interim preservation of property by the highest court of the land”
11. Furthermore, the case raises the issue of the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the court in the nature of preserving property pending trial without regard to irredeemable hardship and irreparable loss to a corporate body who must use the equipments and machines to discharge its obligation to third parties.
12. There is yet the need for an authoritative pronouncement on what the subject-matter of a litigation constitutes as to whether it is borne out of the pleadings as cleverly settled by lawyers or the substance therefrom as can be gleaned by the written bargains of the parties prior to the litigation.
13. I am further advised that there are weighty and not fanciful grounds of appeal which should be a major consideration for the grant of this application”
As it could be gleaned from the above paragraphs forming the crux of the depositions in support of this application, the applicant was questioning the judges’ pronouncements on interim preservation and the exercise