GHASSOUB v. BIBIANI WOOD COMPLEX LTD.

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.

Edusei J.A. delivered the ruling of the court. Nyanor, counsel for the applicant, moves in terms of the motion paper and supporting affidavit for the application for stay of execution pending appeal. He contends that the issue was whether a service on a visitor is service on the [p.272] solicitor. He further contends that the application in the court below was virtually dismissed. He therefore refers to Order 9, r. 19 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) to support his application.

Owusu Bempah, counsel for the respondent, on the other hand in opposing the application contends that the application in the court below was granted because the court below ordered that three-quarters of ¢150,366.36 (the judgment debt) plus costs of ¢8,000 should be paid to the plaintiff and one-quarter was to be paid into court. Counsel therefore submitted that the application be refused.

We think this is a proper case to grant a stay since there are arguable points in the appeal as to whether service on a visitor in a solicitor's office is service on the solicitor. The stay we have granted is in respect of the whole judgment debt of ¢150,366.36 and the costs of ¢8,000.

In the court below the court awarded costs of ¢1,000 when the applicant's motion for stay was virtually dismissed. In the circumstances, we hold the view that we also can grant costs of ¢1,000 to the applicant to offset the costs awarded in the court below.

DECISION

Application granted.

M. C. N. – N.