Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
April 25, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
This is a Ruling on an Application for an order to remove some items seized in
execution, for stay of execution and leave for payment by instalment.
I have read the Application, the supporting Affidavit and further Affidavit in support
of the Application. I have also read the Affidavit in Opposition. I have also given
consideration to the Written Submissions filed by Counsels for and against the grant or
otherwise of the Application.
I have noted that the Judgment Debtor was served with Judgment in default of Defence
and Entry of Judgment. However, he did not take any steps to dispute the Judgment. I
have also noted that the Judgment Debtor is disputing the Judgment Debt. Meanwhile,
he is asking this Court to make an order for him to pay the Judgment Debt by
instalment. I have further noted that he has not stated the amount he owes. However,
he is praying this Court to stay execution. The question is, what is the Court staying? I
have also noted that the prayer by the Judgment Debtor to remove some items seized
in execution is clearly alien to the rules and practice of this Court.
I am therefore of the considered view that this application is misconceived and same
ought to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Cost of GH¢2,000.00 is awarded in
favour of the Execution/Creditor against the Execution/Debtor.
(SGD)
JUSTICE RICHARD APIETU
(HIGH COURT JUDGE)
AI Generated Summary
In a High Court ruling, Justice Richard Apietu addressed a post-judgment enforcement application brought by a judgment debtor seeking three distinct remedies: removal of seized items, stay of execution, and leave to pay the judgment debt by instalments. The judge observed that the debtor had been served with a judgment in default of defence and entry of judgment but took no steps to dispute it. Although the debtor now disputed the debt, he sought instalment payments without stating the amount owed. The court questioned the foundation for any stay of execution, asking what order would be stayed, and held that the prayer to remove items seized in execution was alien to the court’s rules and practice. Concluding that the application was misconceived, the court dismissed it and awarded GH¢2,000 costs in favour of the execution/creditor against the execution/debtor.