JOSEPH KODWO APPEADU-SIAW VS WILLIAM KWASI BOAKYE SIAW

Before me is an application by the Plaintiff herein after called “The Applicant” for Stay of Execution of the Judgment of this Court, differently constituted, rendered in favour of the Defendant/Counterclaimant referred to as “The Respondent”. According to the Applicant, the Respondent and his thugs went onto the land on the sameday Judgment was delivered to demolish the frontage of the property as well as thesignees of the restaurant of the Applicant.

Applicant claims he had lived on the disputed property for forty (40) years and has sentimental attachments to it.

In effect, it is his matrimonial home.

The application was opposed by Counsel for the Respondent.

The Applicant blames the respondent for brazenly constructing metal sheet wall across the frontage of the house.

In the absence of an Order for Stay of Execution, I wonder how a Judgment Creditor undertaking that action to protect the property he had obtained Judgment over be considered to be acting unlawfully.

Interestingly, both parties accused each other of using thugs to cause damage to the property.

While the Applicant’s assertion was unsubstantiated, the Respondent had a Police extract to corroborate his evidence.

It is the Plaintiff’s case that the property was gifted to him by his father.

Nevertheless, when it was interfered with by the Respondent, and he sued to assert his right, he found it convenient to discontinue the action while the Respondent forged on with his counterclaim.

I also take into consideration the fact that the Applicant has not been living in the subject property since the COVID-19 Pandemic and so the question of sentimental attachment to the property may be questionable.

After carefully examining the processes filed and the submissions of the Counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that the application lacks merits.

The Applicant could not convince this Court that there are really exceptional circumstances that warrant the grant of the application.

The submission that the Respondent is bent on selling off the property could not be proved.

It was at best, speculative.

Accordingly, I dismiss the application for Stay of Execution of the Judgment of this Court differently constituted. (SGD. )H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTUJUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.