JUDGMENT OF LAMPTEY J.A.
On 18 December 1989, the High Court, Ho (presided over by Amuah J.A. sitting as an additional judge of the High Court) gave judgment in favour of the six plaintiffs against the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana as the first defendant and the Right Reverend Professor Dzobo as the second defendant. By that judgment the learned trial judge, inter alia, held:
"(1) That the 1979 Constitution is the only valid constitutional document within the church.
(2) That the 1979 Constitution was never amended and that any purported amendment is without effect
(3) That the so-called 1980 Constitution is a forged document and must not be considered at all.
(4) That the nomination and election of the second defendant for a third term is a nullity and without effect . . .”
(The emphasis is mine.)
[p.297]
On 19 December 1989, i.e. a day after the said judgment was read, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Right Reverend Professor Dzobo by their solicitors promptly appealed against that decision. The Right Reverend Professor Dzobo, the second defendant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), next applied to the trial court for a stay of the force and effect of the said judgment. On 12 February 1990, Acquah J. heard the application and refused to stay the said judgment of 18 December 1989. The application for stay was therefore repeated in this court. The six plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) resisted the application for stay of the judgment. In order to appreciate the essence of the instant application it is necessary to reproduce the reliefs sought by the respondents in the High Court. These were stated at length in the judgment dated 18 December 1989 as follows:
The plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally:
(1) A declaration that the purported amendment of the 1979 Constitution of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ghana is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(2) A declaration that the nomination and election of the second defendant by the clergy of the church in January 1988 for a third term commencing January 1989 is in breach of the constitution of the church and therefore null and void.
(3) An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from amending or indorsing the purported amendment of the constitution without the due compliance with the 1979 constitutional provision on amendments.
(4) An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the
