GYAESAYOR, JA
This is an application by the 1st defendant/judgment debtor to stay the execution of the judgment entered against her in the High Court on the 13th day of April 2016.
Judgment was entered against the applicant in the sum of 6.2 million Ghana Cedis for supplying the judgment creditor’s mobile phone communication records to the 2nd defendant without her permission.
Based on this according to the plaintiff/creditor her husband after going through her phone records decided not to continue his seventeen year old marriage with her.
Indeed the husband has since left the matrimonial home and refused to provide for the home.
The plaintiff filed a writ seeking damages of Gh¢10,000.000.00 for the wrongful and illegal supply of the plaintiff’s communication records to the 2nd defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge, consent and authority.
The trial court awarded an amount of 6.2million Cedis after finding that plaintiff was entitled to her relief and awarded damages under various heads being the consequences flowing from the 1st defendant’s action.
The 1st defendant has appealed against the decision of the High Court and followed it with an application to stay the judgment until the appeal is finally determined.
The trial judge considered the application and granted a conditional stay.
In his ruling, dated 16/05/2016 the learned judge ordered that:
a. The defendant judgment debtor pays into court within 14 days 50% of the judgment debt; and
b. That the said sum be released to the plaintiff/respondent upon her entry into a bond, with 2 sureties to refund same should the appeal succeed; The 1st defendant not satisfied with the ruling is now here seeking an order to vacate the ruling on the grounds that the appeal has no chance of success.
It is not his contention that the respondent cannot refund the amount if the appeal succeeds.
It is clear that the trial judge in arriving at his decision took into account the interest of both parties by finding that a winning party shall not be deprived of the benefits conferred by the judgment and also took into account the fact that a judgment shall not be rendered nugatory in the event of a successful appeal and made provision to protect the two parties by asking the respondent to enter into a bond with two sureties.
After listening to the parties, I take the view that the main issue as to whether the applicant was negligent in releasing the phone records was based on the facts of the case as found by t
