NII LANTE MILLS v. MILDRED AMA WOODE
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M. AGYEMANG (MRS), JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Legal Ethics
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved a repeat application for a stay of execution of a judgment regarding a land dispute. The application was dismissed due to procedural incompetence, as it was signed by a firm and not a licensed individual. Even on its merits, the application failed to meet the criteria for a stay of execution, lacking sufficient evidence of hardship or potential nullification of a successful appeal. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to legal standards for filing procedures and balanced the rights of the respondent to benefit from the judgment.
This is a ruling in respect of a repeat application for stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court dated 10th of April 2014. The application is supported by a sixteen-paragraph affidavit sworn to by the defendant/appellant/applicant (applicant).
According to the deponent, the plaintiff/respondent/respondent (respondent) obtained judgment against her at the High Court in respect of land of which she was in possession.
The main arguments canvassed on behalf of the applicant were that the applicant’s appeal had a good chance of success as it was her case that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It was contended that due to the respondent’s penchant to pull down the applicant’s structures, the respondent was likely to pull down the structure she had on the land or worse, sell the land to a third party, a circumstance that would not only create hardship, but also render a successful appeal nugatory.
Learned counsel for the respondent in response raised a preliminary point of objection to the application. In his submission, the present application was incompetent as the motion paper was signed not by learned counsel duly identified by his solicitor’s license number, but by a firm name which was unknown to our courts. He submitted that the use of a firm name as solicitor rather than a lawyer whose name was on the roll of lawyers rendered the entire process incompetent, as was held by the Supreme Court in Republic v. High Court, Ex parte Teriwajah (Reiss and Co. Interested parties), that a process filed by a lawyer without a solicitor’s licence was incompetent.
On the merits of the application, learned counsel contended that the assertion that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice not having been raised as an issue at the court below, was an afterthought, as it was not even contained in the affidavit in support of the application. Learned counsel noted also that the only ground of appeal was the omnibus ground which only grounded jurisdiction in the appellate court to reconsider all the evidence led at the court below and to come to its own conclusion. Thus did he submit that the appeal had no great chance of success as no demonstration had been made that an arguable point of law had been raised thereby. In learned counsel’s further submission, relying on the uncontroverted deposition contained in the respondent’s affidavit in opposition that the applicant was not in possession of the land, no demonstrati