KWASI OWUSU & NII ACHIA FAMILY v. JOSHUA NMAI ADDO & EMMANUEL K. Q. PAPAFIO
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WOOD (MRS.) CJ, PRESIDING
- ANSAH, JSC
- DOTSE, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BENIN, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity
- Appeals
- Evidence
2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds, holding that the Court of Appeal did not rely on unproven matters and that the appeal was incompetent due to the lack of special leave.
JUDGMENT
WOOD (MRS.) CJ:-
On 5th September 2012, the Fast Track Division of the High Court, Accra, delivered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents (Respondents), inter alia, for declaration of title to a parcel of land at Achiaman, near Amasaman, damages for trespass, recovery of possession , and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant/ Defendants/Appellants (Appellants) “their grantees, licensees, workmen, servants, successors in title and privies whatsoever from entering, remaining on or in any way encumbering the land or any part thereof or undertaking any construction or other work thereon inconsistent with the absolute ownership, possession and / or enjoyment” of the Respondents.”
Being dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants promptly lodged an appeal against it to the Court of Appeal. Their applications for stay of execution of the said judgment to the trial High Court, and the subsequent repeat application to the Court of Appeal, were however dismissed by the respective courts. The 21st May, 2013 succinct ruling of the court of Appeal which has culminated in this instant appeal reads:
“The grant or refusal of an application for stay of execution is an equitable remedy and depends on the discretion of the court. He who comes to equity must do to equity. From the affidavit evidence and also from the annexures to these affidavits, it is clear to us that the Applicants have not come to this court with clean hands. The affidavit evidence before us show that the Applicants are currently facing contempt proceedings for allegedly ignoring the judgment to(sic) the trial court and the pendency of application for stay of execution and gone into the land to perpetuate acts on the land. In the circumstances, we do not feel disposed to granting the application. The application is accordingly dismissed.”
The Appellants question the correctness of the said ruling on grounds that:
1. “The Court of Appeal in exercising its discretion drew wrong inferences from the facts in dismissing the application for stay of execution pending appeal wherein occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2. The Court of Appeal erred when it took into consideration matters which were not properly before it in dismissing the Defendants/Appellants application.
3. The ruling is against the weight of the affidavit evidence.”
Judged in the light of the ruling complained of, these three grounds of appeal are clearly so interrelated, they would, for prudential re