LAWRENCE YAW NTAADU VS STEPHEN BOAKYE
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU (MS.) JSC (PRESIDING)
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC
- ASEIDU JSC
- DARKO ASARE JSC
- ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court, per Adjei-Frimpong JSC, dismissed an appeal by the Defendant (Stephen Boakye) challenging the Court of Appeal’s refusal to stay execution of its judgment ordering him to yield up possession of the hotel formerly known as MARCELLINI (now OBAAPA HOTEL) at Sefwi Essam. The original transaction in April 2014 set a price of GH₵150,000 with GH₵40,000 paid and GH₵110,000 due by 31 December 2014, with a review clause. Following default, the Plaintiff increased the price to GH₵300,000 and sued in the High Court, which ordered payment of GH₵300,000 less the deposit. The Court of Appeal partly allowed an appeal, ordering recovery of possession and restoration of the property. When the Court of Appeal refused a stay, the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. Applying settled appellate and stay principles, the Court held no exceptional circumstances were shown, found no breach of natural justice despite Counsel’s absence because motions may be decided on affidavits, and declined to substitute its discretion for that of the Court of Appeal. Asiedu JSC concurred, adding that such appeals require special leave under Article 131(2).
ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC:
This appeal turns on a simple issue. It is, whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal properly exercised their discretion in refusing to stay execution of its judgment pending appeal in this Court. It is common learning that granting or refusing stay of execution of a judgment or decision is discretionary. This is therefore an appeal against the exercise of a court’s discretion.
The law in this area is fairly settled. BADDOO JSC sitting in this Court in the case of KYENKYENHENE VRS ADU [2004-2004]1 SCGLR 142 at 154 had cause to refer to CHARLES OSENTON & CO VRS JOSEHNSTON [1942] AC 130 HL as follow:
“The law as to the reversal by a Court of Appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established and any difficulty that arises in due only to the application of well-established principles in an individual case. The appellate tribunal is not at liberty to merely to substitute its own discretion for the discretion exercised by the judge. In other words, appellate authorities ought not to reverse the order merely because they would themselves have exercised the original discretion, had it attached to them in a different way. But if the appellate tribunal reaches the clear conclusion that there has been a wrongful exercise of discretion, in that no weight or no sufficient weight has been given to relevant considerations, such as those urged upon us, by the appellant, then the reversal of the order on appeal may be justified.”
The principle has gained large following in many cases in this Court. WOOD JSC (as she then was) SAPPOR V WIGATAP [2007-2008] SCGLR 176 at 697 stated the position this way:
“The principles clearly enunciated in the two Court of Appeal decisions in NKRUMAH V SERWAA [1984-84]1 GLR 190 and BALLMOOS V MENSAH [1984-84]1 GLR 725, are that an appellate court would not interfere with the exercise of discretion where the court below applied wrong principles, or the conclusion reached would work manifest injustice or even that the discretion was exercised on wrong or inadequate materials.” See IN RE PARAMOUNT STOOL OF BAMIANKOR; EFFIA IV & ANOR VRS NANA TAIBA II & ORS (2010) SCGLR 37; BUABENG VRS FORKUO 22nd Jan 1970, DIGESTED IN (1970) C.C. 59 CA; OWUSU VRA OWUSU ANSAH [2007-2008] SCGLR 870; TRABOULSI & CO VRS PATERSON ZONCHONIS & CO., LTD [1973]1 GLR 133.
This case originated in the High Court, Sefwi Wiawso. It involved the sale of a hotel then called MARCELLIN