REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE SOKU & ANOR
February 12, 1997
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AIKINS,
- AMPIAH,
- ADJABENG,
- A TUGUBA
- AKUFFO JJSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
February 12, 1997
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Adjabeng JSC, considered an application for certiorari seeking to quash a High Court ruling that conditioned a stay of execution on payment of the full judgment debt into court and payment of costs to the respondent in the case styled Tetteh Laryea v John Soku and Another. The applicants argued error on the face of the record, relying on Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Sidi. The Court clarified that Sidi permits repeating a stay application in the appellate court when onerous conditions effectively amount to refusal but does not render such conditional grants wrong in law. Emphasizing caution in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 132 and reiterating that certiorari is not a substitute for appeal and is limited to correcting manifest errors of law or jurisdictional defects, the Court found no error on the face of the High Court ruling and dismissed the application.
Adjabeng JSC delivered the ruling of the court. This is an application for, "an order of certiorari to issue to quash the ruling of the High Court, Accra, dated 12 June 1996 in civil motion No Misc 789/96 intituled Tetteh Laryea v John Soku and Another and to substitute for it an order for stay of the judgment debt and costs pending the determination of the appeal before the High Court "
The applicants had been sued at the District Court, La, Accra, by one Tetteh Laryea who claimed damages against them for damage done to his vehicle. The trial court gave judgment against the applicants and awarded damages of ¢ 1 ,050,000 and costs of ¢80,000 against them. Dissatisfied with the judgment, they appealed against it to the High Court, Accra. They then applied to the trial court for stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal. The trial court refused the application
They therefore repeated it at the High Court. The High Court ruled on the application as follows:
Having read the motion paper and the supporting affidavit and also the affidavit in opposition to the motion, it is my considered opinion that the judgment debt be paid into the court to await the outcome of the appeal. However, the costs are to be paid to the respondent.
The judgment debt should be paid into the court on or before 12 July 1996.
It is this ruling that the applicants seek in the instant application to have brought up here and quashed.
The ground upon which the application is brought is that there is an error on the face of the record. The applicants contend in their statement of case that,
the order that the whole judgment debt of ¢ 1 ,050,000 should be paid into court and the costs paid to the plaintiff-judgment creditor as a condition for granting a stay of execution is a perversion of justice and is therefore wrong.
The application seems to have been based wholly on the Supreme Court case of Republic v Court of Appeal; Ex parte Sidi [1987-88] 2 GLR 170, Sc. In that case, the applicant applied for the stay of execution of damages of ¢ 1 million and costs of ¢5,000 awarded against him by the High Court, Tamale in a libel suit after appealing against the judgment to the Court of Appeal. The High Court granted the application for stay of execution on the condition that the judgment debt and costs were paid" into court pending the determination of the appeal. Being of the view that the terms were rather harsh and