DELAE SOWU & ORS VS ALLIED COMPANY LTD & ORS

The application for stay of proceedings has been filed on 25/03/2019. The reasons in support, as gleaned from the affidavit of Manasseh Nartey, firstly is that, the 1st Respondent/Applicant (referred to as applicant) is aggrieved about the dismissal of the preliminary objection to the hearing of the substantive action.

It is applicant’s case that the action is statute barred.

Because the application has been filed, in respect of acts which allegedly occurred six months prior to the commencement of the suit.

There is EXHIBIT ‘MN1’ which is the Notice of Appeal, annexed to the motion.

Secondly, in paragraph 12 of the deposition in support, applicant states: “… the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if forced to proceed with the suit and the appellate court declares the procedure wrong. ”Thirdly, applicant contends that, there are exceptional circumstances necessitating the grant of the application, because there are serious issues for consideration of the court of appeal.

There is an amended, Notice of Appeal, which was filed by the leave of this Court.

It has been referred to by Counsel for Applicant, in his submissions.

And I have examined same.

What is offered in rebuttal could be found in the deposition of the 1st Applicant/Respondent (herein after referred to as respondent). Firstly, it was stated that this action commenced since 13/07/2017 and should have been dealt with expeditiously, because it involves a complain about Human Right violations.

But the action has suffered several setbacks mostly at the instance of the applicant herein.

The respondent states that the violations are still on going, and on daily basis.

The respondent, contends that the appeal is a sham, unmeritorious and calculated to further delay a speedy adjudication of the matter.

Whiles the quality of health of respondents keeps deteriorating through the activities of applicant.

Therefore irreparable injury will be caused to them if the motion is granted.

ASSESSMENT OF AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE There is no exact rule of procedure on application for stay of proceedings.

But case law has established that it could be made to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the court.

The governing principle, however, is that the applicant must show that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a stay of proceedings.

The main reason in support is that, this Court has wrongfully assumed jurisdiction in a case which is statute barred.

The rebuttal is that there has been c