GASO PETROLEUM GHANA LIMITED vs ISAL LOGISTICS GROUP LIMITED & ANOR.

The refusal to strike out the 2nd Defendant as a party to this suit has triggered the instant application for Stay of Proceedings pending Appeal.

The sole issue for determination is whether or not proceedings must be stayed.

In arguing the application, Counsel for the 2nd Defendant/Applicant relied on: (i) Golden Beach Hotels (Ghana) Limited Vrs. Packlus International Limited (2012) 1 SCGLR 452; (ii) Martin Alamisi Amidu Vrs. The Attorney General & Ors.

Civil Motion No. J8/115/17 dated 4th July 2017, to the effect that since the Applicant’s appeal has every chance of success as demonstrated in his submissions, proceedings ought to be stayed.

In particular, Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff/Respondent failed to establish in its affidavit in opposition that the 2nd Defendant/Applicant engaged in fraud or fraudulent trading.

Further, Counsel argued that if the Plaintiff/respondent had any evidence of fraud, same ought to have been demonstrated in the affidavit in opposition.

He maintained that since the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim is the sales agreement, and in the absence of any evidence of fraud, the 2nd Defendant is certainly not a necessary party to this suit and that the principles as stated in the case of Morkor Vrs. Kuma(1998/99) SCGLR 620 are applicable to this case.

In his view there are sufficient grounds for the grant of this application.

For the Plaintiff/Respondent, Counsel argued that the success of such an application depends to a large extent on the discretion of the Court, and that they are not granted lightly.

Morkor Vrs. Kuma (1998/99) SCGLR 620 were cited and relied on.

He was emphatic that fraud has been particularized in the Plaintiff’s pleadings, specifically, in paragraphs 3, 5, 10 and 13 of the statement of claim.

Fraud apart, Counsel submitted that the Court has jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil in the interest of justice as stated in the Morkor Vrs. Kuma case, supra.

In the case of Appah Vrs. Barnor (1987-88)1 GLR 489 CA, the guiding principles for the grant of an application for stay of proceedings were considered.

The Court held that: “For the application to be granted, the applicant had to allege and prove by affidavit special circumstances why the application should be granted.

The special circumstances might be the destruction of the subject matter of the appeal before it was determined or that the applicant would suffer irreparable loss or the appeal would be rendered nugatory if successful”. Also, in