The Plaintiffs on 8th June, 2016 instituted an action in this Court for the following reliefs:
a) A Declaration that the statement breaches the non-discrimination provisions in Article 5(2) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
b) A Declaration that the statement made by the Defendant is discriminatory, abusive or degrading of Persons With Disability in Ghana contrary to Article 29(2) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana on non-discrimination of grounds of social statutes.
c) A Declaration that the statement by the Defendant amounts to calling of a Disable Person with a derogatory name contrary to Section 37 of the Persons with Disability Act 2006 Act 715. e) An order for the Defendant to retract the statement and render an unqualified apology to Mr. Ivor Greenstreet as well as the Disability Community in Ghana.
f) Legal fees and cost. The Defendant entered appearance on 18th July, 2016, and followed it with a motion on notice for an order striking out the claims endorsed on the Plaintiffs’ Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
The application which sought to strike out the suit was dismissed as without merit on 17th August, 2016. The Defendant/Applicant has appealed against the said ruling as per the notice of appeal herein marked as Exhibit ‘BG1’. The Applicants is presently in this Court asking for an order to stay proceedings pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal.
The motion to stay proceedings was filed on 23rd September, 2016 and served on the Plaintiffs/Respondents on 28th September, 2016. The Respondents, as at the time of the hearing of the application, had not filed an affidavit in opposition to the application, and were also not present in court to contest same.
Besides, although the Respondents had been notified of the hearing of the application, they were absent from court.
They also failed to furnish the Court with reasons for their absence.
Accordingly, the Court proceeded to hear the Applicant’s submissions in support of the application for stay of proceedings.
Counsel for the Applicants urged on the Court that per order 51 rule 9(2) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47) the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.
I have looked at Order 51 Rule 9 (2) (b) of C. I. 47, upon which, according to Counsel, the application is premised.
In the first place order 51 of C. I. 47 relates to appeals from the District Courts to the High Court
