ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR v. APAADE LODGE LIMITED

ADINYIRA (MRS),J.S.C:

The facts briefly are that on 3 March 2006, the Plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter respondent) commenced an action at the High Court Accra against the Attorney General as 1st defendant and the Ghana Football Association as the 2nd defendant (hereinafter applicant) jointly and severally, for the recovery of the sum of ¢422, 148,026 with interest being debt owed in respect of hotel and restaurant services provided by the plaintiff to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and the applicant. The 1st defendant entered appearance but failed to file a defence, and the applicant herein did not enter any appearance. On 4 April 2006, upon an application by the respondent, the High Court entered judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, in default of defence and appearance respectively. The respondent took steps to execute the judgment, and then the applicant applied to the High Court to set aside the default judgment on the main ground that it was not liable for the debt, as the understanding was that it was the 1st defendant who was to settle the bills. The High Court refused to set aside the judgment. The applicant therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal against this refusal but was again unsuccessful by a judgment dated 22 May2008. The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal and then applied for a stay of execution of the default judgment of the High Court dated 4 April 2006. The Court of Appeal refused the application on the ground that the applicant had not appealed against the said judgment.

The applicant has now brought a repeat application before us and has urged upon this Court to stay the judgment of the High Court dated 4 April 2006. Counsel for the applicant conceded in his submissions that the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 22 May 2008 against which he had lodged an appeal was non-executable and therefore cannot be stayed. He further conceded that he had not appealed against the judgment of the High Court dated 4 April 2006 but argued that this failure does not mean this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain his application. The basis of his argument is two fold, namely : 1) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 129(4) of the 1992 Constitution and the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) to stay the judgment and 2) that procedurally one cannot legitimately appeal against a default judgment and therefore in the interest of justice and pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction