Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING
NOTICE ON MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
i. Introduction
[1] This is an application by the 1st and 3rd Defendants/Applicants/Appellants praying this Court to stay proceedings in the instant suit pending the final determination of an appeal filed against an earlier ruling of this Court and pending at the Court of Appeal.
[2] It recalls that on the 4th day of February, 2019 the 1st and 3rd Defendants/Applicants filed a Notice of Motion titled “Motion on Notice for an Order for the Court to Decline Further Jurisdiction in this Action - Order 3 Rule 1(5) of C.I. 47 & the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court”. The Applicants sought the following orders stated below from the Court;
i. An order to decline further jurisdiction in this action against the 1st and 3rd Defendants on the basis of forum non-convenience.
ii. And for any further order(s) as this Honourable Court shall deem fit and necessary to make.
[3] At the hearing of the application Counsel for the Applicants reiterated the depositions in the affidavit which she had deposed that the Applicants are of the firm belief that “although this Honourable Court is competent to hear any issue bordering on the claim as endorsed on the writ and statement of claim, in this particular matter this Court has to decline jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter on the basis of forum non conveniens and that there is a more convenient forum in the United States of America where the 1st and 3rd Defendants/Applicants are amenable to.”
[4] The Applicants further contended that it is obvious that the rules of Court specifically Order 1(2) of C.I. 47 shall be defeated if the case is entertained in this forum. According to the Applicants the 1st Defendant/Applicant is a newspaper/magazine publisher incorporated under the laws of USA and conducts its business in the USA. They also contended that the article which is the subject matter of the present complaint and action was also printed and published in the USA. Making the case for the 3rd Defendant/Applicant, it was submitted that although he is a Ghanaian, he is ordinarily resident in the USA and has been so for over twenty years and conducts his business there. In effect the Applicants opined that the Courts of the United States of America was the proper forum because they do not live and conducts business in Ghana and that if the Plaintiff wished he should institute his action in the USA against them.
[5] The Plainti