Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
May 3, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The Court has heard arguments from both Counsel in an application for and against the stay of proceedings under the judgment and order of suspension of the entry of judgment pending appeal. The Court has also perused the affidavit in support and against. The Court will refuse for the following reasons.
1. The application is unknown to our rules of court in that it is execution that is stayed after judgment. Stay of proceedings only occurs when the trial is on-going and therefore if the Applicant has filed an appeal, then obviously, the route is unknown to our law.
2. Assuming without admitting that the application is proper, it can best be described as a repeat application as the reliefs being sought by Applicant has already been determined and dismissed in previous applications and rulings. The authority on repeat application is found in the case of Republic v High Court ex-parte: David Andreas Hesse (unreported Civil Motion No. J5/191/2008) dated 30th July, 2008 SC, this states that a party can come to the same court for a repeat application when new circumstances come up. The Applicant has not in the opinion of the Court provided any new circumstances. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed as unmeritorious.
Counsel for Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent: My Lady, we pray for costs of GHC5000.00 to be awarded against counsel for Judgment Debtor/Applicant personally. The reason for this request is that per their own exhibit, the Judgment Debtor has sold all of its assets to another company. And since 2018, copious application for stay of execution in different forms have been deposed to by the clerk of the counsel and not the Judgment Debtor. Sometimes these depositions contains blatant misrepresentation of facts and are often self-contradictory. As counsel they owe a duty to the Court first and foremost before their client and so they cannot keep coming to court to intentionally delay the execution of this Court.
Counsel Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Appellant/Applicant: My Lady, he is saying things that he cannot substantiate.
By Court: The Court will award the costs rightly against Counsel for Defendant for abusing the court process and filing spurious application. Costs of GHC5000.00 awarded in favour of the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor/Respondent against the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Applicant. The case is adjourned to 17th May, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.
(sgd)
H/L JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)
M.A. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)
AI Generated Summary
Justice Jane Harriet Akweley Quaye of the High Court refused an application by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor, also described as Appellant/Applicant, seeking a stay of proceedings and suspension of entry of judgment pending appeal. After hearing both Counsel and reviewing affidavits, the Court held that under the rules, stays of proceedings are appropriate only during ongoing trials; after judgment, the proper relief is a stay of execution. The motion was additionally characterized as a repeat application that sought reliefs previously dismissed, without presenting new circumstances. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s counsel requested costs against Defendant’s counsel personally, citing repeated filings since 2018, clerk-signed affidavits, and misrepresentations. The Court found abuse of process, dismissed the application as unmeritorious, awarded GHC5000 in costs in favor of the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, and adjourned the case to 17 May 2023 at 9:00 a.m.