RULING
NOTICE ON MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
Introduction:
(1) This is an application by the 2nd Defendant/Applicant/Appellant praying this Court to stay proceedings in the instant suit pending the final determination of an interlocutory appeal filed against an earlier ruling of this Court and pending at the Court of Appeal.
(2) It recalls that on the 18th day of April, 2019 the Applicant here in’s motion for Misjoinder was dismissed by this Court and cost of GH¢ 3,000 was awarded against Applicant. I note that the Court in that decision concluded that having considered the affidavit evidence and the submission of both Counsel it is evident that, Mr. Tarek Nasser, the Applicant herein is a necessary party to a suit. Now, by the instant application the Applicant contends that being dissatisfied with the Court’s ruling he has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal and he has been advised that he is not a necessary party to the instant proceedings and therefore any further step taken by the Applicant in these proceedings will be in abject futility in the likely event of his Appeal succeeding.
Affidavit Evidence & Counsel’s Arguments:
(3) The grounds upon which the application is premised are catalogued in a 33 paragraph supporting affidavit accompanying the motion paper and sworn to by one Peter Marfo, a Law Clerk in the service of the Law Firm, Agyemang and Associates where Counsel, Mr. Osman Gyan works. The deponent rehashes the facts of the case and stated at paragraph 6 that pursuant to an application by the Plaintiff/Respondent for Amendment of the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the title of the suit to include the Applicant as a party and “thereby effectively joining him as a party”. It is also deposed that the application was made without notice to the Applicant.
(4) The affidavit further speaks to how Mr. Gyan came into the matter and the application he filed which culminated in the ruling for which he has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. Exhibits named as Exhibits “TN” to “TN5” were attached to the application. According to the Applicant the appeal is not frivolous and has a greater chance of success since the grounds of appeal raises weighty matters of law and facts for determination by the Court of Appeal. It is the case of the Applicant that the Court fell into fatal error when it relied on the search results attached to the Respondent’s Affida
