Try asking the following...
RULING
WELBOURNE (MRS), J.A.
This ruling is in respect of an application for stay of proceedings pending interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 27A of CI 19.
Both counsel filed affidavits in support and in opposition to this application.
The gravamen of the Applicant’s prayer is that the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent commenced an action at the High Court, Accra against him (The Defendant/Appellant/Applicant).
The Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent completed his evidence and called PW1 as his witness who testified and was under cross-examination.
He further stated that on 21st July, 2015, the matter was listed for hearing and counsel cross-examined PW1 until 11.00 a.m. that day.
That the judge asked counsel if he had a long way to go and he answered in the affirmative. The case was stood down to 1.00 p.m that very day. The Applicant’s counsel informed the court that he had another part-heard case fixed for continuation at the High Court, Land Division, Accra before Justice Sittie J and that it would be impossible for him to appear at 1.00 p.m. that day. The judge according to the Appellant, ignored the letter seeking the adjournment and discharged PW1 from the witness stand.
That the applicant’s motion to set aside the discharge order to enable him complete the cross-examination of PW1 was dismissed by the judge. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant has appealed that decision. This application is thus to stay proceedings in the court below pending the appeal.
The Applicant in a supplementary affidavit filed also exhibited the record of proceedings as Exhibit AAT4, and AAT5.
Other Exhibits in support were Exhibits AAT6, 7 and 8. These were to show that if PW1’s evidence remains unchallenged, grave miscarriage of justice would be occasioned by him.
Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent in opposition stated that the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant had not been able to disclose any special circumstances to warrant a stay of the trial proceedings before the High Court. Indeed, he submitted further that the Appellant had the opportunity of not less than five occasions to cross-examine the witness.
In considering applications for stay of proceedings, one must note that the discretion to grant a stay of proceedings may be exercised if there are special circumstances to warrant same. In the case of Brutuw v Aferiba [1979] GLR 566, an application for stay was refused notwithstanding the arguments that the appeal for which the stay was sought :
Raised importa