Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
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