JOWAK SAWMILLS LTD. v. THE ATTORNEY–GENERAL & ANOTHER

DUOSE J.A

The Appellant/Applicant herein, the Forestry Commission applied to this court, differently, constituted praying for a stay of execution of a judgment of the High Court against which it had appealed. On the 23rd day of March 2011 this court differently constituted refused to grant the application in the following words.

“we are of the view that the Applicant has not sufficiently and satisfactorily demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the necessary consideration in favour of the Applicant”.

The appellant applicant now brings before this court differently constituted an application praying for stay of proceedings pending appeal. The Court of Appeal Rules 1997 CI 19 gives this court jurisdiction in matters regarding the effect of Appeal in rule 27(1). Indeed, rule 20 (1) of the Supreme Court rules 1997 CI 16 is in sum a verbatim repetition of rule 27(1) of CI 19. Rule 27(1) reads as follows.

“An appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the judgment or decision appealed against except where the court below or

the court otherwise orders”.

In STANDARD CHARTERED BANK GHANA LTD VS WESTERN HARDWOOD LTD (2009) SCGLR 196, ATUGUBA JSC at 2000 interpreted and expatiated rule 20(1) of CI 16 in the following words.

“With regard to the suspension of the order of execution granted on terms by the Court of Appeal, this court has recently shown in the case of ANANG SOWAH VS GDAMS, MJ8/2/2009, given on 14th January 2009 ............ that contrary to the earlier decision of this court in TAKYI V GHASSOUB (GHANA) LTD. (1987-88)2 GLR 452; this court can, in an appropriate case grant a “stay of proceedings under the judgment or decision appealed against”, under rule 20(1) of the Supreme Court of Rules, 1996 (CI 16), and not only in respect of execution process. The scope of our jurisdiction in that regard was therein set out. In this regard we would, in this modern era of functional or purposive justice liberally interprets the word “proceeding” in rule 20(1) as referring to any steps that are required or are necessitated, and not merely occasioned, by the judgment appealed from”.

The Supreme Court never-the-less went ahead to dismiss the application before it. In other words to qualify under the appropriate case category, the applicant must make a case to merit a special consideration. It would appear therefore that the standards required are with all due respect higher than those required for the grant