Try asking the following...
RULING
On 14th August 2023, the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants) filed a motion before this court for an order of interlocutory injunction pending appeal and for stay of execution to restrain the Defendant/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent) from taking any step towards the enforcement of the arbitration award dated 23rd May 2016. The motion is supported by affidavit and exhibits.
The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: 2. That a copy of the arbitration award is attached hereto and marked as exhibit ‘A’. 3. That the Defendant sought to strike out the writ from the onset indicating that the institution of a writ to nullify the arbitration award was wrong.
4. This Honourable Court did not find favour with the stance taken by the Defendant and overruled his objection and held that a full trial be held.
5. The Defendant sought to quash the decision of this court relating to the conduct of a full trial but the Supreme Court dismissed the application for certiorari.
9. That on 25th of July 2023, this Honourable Court delivered its judgment.
See a copy of the said judgment attached hereto and marked as exhibit ‘AX’. 10. That being dissatisfied with the judgment, we have filed an appeal.
See a copy of the Notice of Appeal attached hereto and marked as exhibit ‘B’. 11. That it is clear from the judgment, that the trial judge misconstrued a declaration for a nullity for an application to set aside an award.
12. That it is clear that the trial judge misapplied the law on the time when documents can be tendered in evidence and relied on by the court as exhibits.
14. That the appeal raises serious questions of law, especially with regard to procedural steps to be taken in respect of trials and should the Defendant not be restrained from enforcing the award, the whole appeal would be rendered nugatory.
15. That the trial judge awarded cost of GH¢100, 000. 00 which was clearly unjustified as her claim that the Defendant had been put to great expense as a result of this suit is without any basis.
16. Rather, the Defendant own witness in his evidence to this court clearly admitted, that various sums of money had been paid to them by the Plaintiffs even during the pendency of this suit as payment on account.
17. That there was absolutely no basis for the quantum of cost awarded and we have appealed against same as well in the notice of appeal.
18. That in view of the above, we are praying that thi