DHL GHANA LIMITED VS MERIDIAN PORT SERVICES LIMITED

Before me is a Motion on Notice for Stay of Execution pending an appeal against the Judgment of this Court dated 14th December 2018, and the ruling on the refusal to grant the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Applicant (Applicant) leave to defend the action.

This application was filed by the applicant on 16th April 2019, and it is supported by a 25-paragraphed affidavit in support which I have perused.

In the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent(Respondent) it was deposed in paragraph 5 that the Applicant has embarked on a series of applications in abuse of the rules of Court, and also to frustrate the Respondent, and that there is no merit in the application.

One of such applications is a “MOTION ON NOTICE FOR STAY OF EXECUTION” filed at the Court of Appeal on 11th March 2019 and exhibited to the affidavit in opposition and marked as “MA 2”, the status of which is unknown to this Court.

The only issue before the court is whether in the circumstances of this case it is proper to stay execution.

Whether or not a Court will stay execution of its judgment or order depends on the facts of any particular case, and a Court has a discretion whether to grant or refuse the application.

In the case of Nana Kwasi Agyeman VIII v. Nana Hima Dekyi XIII (1982-83) GLR 453, the Court laid down the guiding principles in considering an application for stay of execution as follows: 1. If the Court is satisfied upon any affidavit or facts proved of the conduct of the defeated party that he was bringing the appeal not bona fide to test the rightness of the judgment but for some collateral purpose the application should be refused; 2. A Court should not stay execution unless there were exceptional circumstances warranting a stay because it was well established that a successful litigant should not be derived of the fruits of his victory; 3. Where the Court is satisfied that the appeal was frivolous because the grounds of appeal contained no merit and therefore there was no chance of it succeeding, it should refuse an application for stay; 4. Whether the grant or refusal of the application would work greater hardship on either party; and 5. That the appeal, if successful, would not be rendered nugatory.

See also Joseph v. Jebeile & Anor (1963) 1 GLR 387 SC, the Court approved of the principle as laid down in the case of Wilson v Church No. 2 (1879) 12 Ch D. 454 that (holding 2): It is the paramount duty of a court to which an appli