2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court considered an application to stay execution of its judgment while a review application was pending. After the full bench decided the review, the majority, led by Chief Justice Anin Yeboah and joined by Justices P. Baffoe-Bonnie, Y. Appau, and G. Pwamang, held the stay request was moot because its sole purpose was to suspend execution until review was determined. A dissent by Justice V. J. M. Dotse highlighted affidavits from the 1st defendant showing the plaintiff continued to own and receive dividends on Cal Bank shares for which he sought the purchase price, and recommended granting a stay and ordering repayment of sums into an escrow at the Bank of Ghana pending clarification of entitlement. Justices G. Torkornoo (Mrs.) and C. J. Honyenuga agreed with Dotse JSC. The result was a divided court: majority denying the stay as moot and dissent advocating equitable relief.
THE MAJORITY DECISION OF THE COURT WAS READ BY YEBOAH CJ
YEBOAH CJ:-
We are of the opinion that the application for Stay of Execution was filed to
stay execution pending the hearing and determination of the motion for
Review Application. We think that as the motion for Review has been
determined by the full Bench, the application for Stay of Execution pending
Review is moot.
ANIN YEBOAH
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
P. BAFFOE-BONNIE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
Y. APPAU
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
THE DISSENTING DECISION OF THE COURT WAS READ BY DOTSE
JSC
DOTSE JSC:-
This is an application for stay of execution pending the determination of Applicant's review application. With the determination of the review, this application should have been considered moot but for the matters that have been placed before us with the application for review.
The 1st defendant has filed affidavits presenting evidence of the Plaintiff receiving dividend on the very Cal Bank shares that he came to this court to pursue payment for. In an affidavit in response filed on 22nd March 2021, the Plaintiff has admitted to this venerable court that indeed, he still owns the shares he came to court to pursue payment for, and he has been receiving dividend on the same shares. He stated particularly in paragraphs 6, 10 and 11 of the affidavit as follows:
6. “That my cause of action against 1st defendant therefore arises from 1st defendant's wrongful conduct as my bankers for which the law requires 1st defendant to pay the interest in the manner settled by law, my relationship with the purchaser of the shares being completely irrelevant in the instant
proceedings”.
10. “That between the judgment of the high court and court of appeal, therefore, the shares as per the said judgment remained my shares BUT THAT the high court reached the conclusion that I remained the owner of the shares EVEN THOUGH the Registrar of the shares had confirmed by way of an exhibit H that the shares had been transferred by me (as vendor) to the purchaser.
11. That it is following the judgment of the high court that the shares were then re-registered in my name and following the judgment, to be registered back in the purchaser's name, for which reason, the question as to whether or not the purchaser of the shares is entitled to the dividend which at the time was paid as the owner of the shares which yielded them as determined by the high court and the court