GH - SANDAH v. ASANTE AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.

This application is brought under Order 34, r. 2 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), asking for an order staying certain proceedings that are now pending before the Lartebiokorshie District Court Grade I, until the present suit now pending in this court is heard and determined.

Counsel for the applicant, Miss Ayisi, argued with all seriousness, that if the action in the said district court is allowed to proceed, it will prejudice the applicant's claim which is before this court, since the claim in the district court as well as the claim in this court involves similar points of law. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the goods that are the subject-matter of the dispute before the Lartebiokorshie District Court were wrongfully seized by the respondents at the Ghana-Togo border, from the custody of the applicant's bailee, who is now one of the two defendants in the action proceeding in the said district court. Counsel therefore contended that any decision against the bailee by the said district court, will affect the applicant's claim before this court. Counsel further argued that the action before the Lartebiokorshie District Court is quasi-criminal and that if the decision goes against the applicant's bailee, it is likely the goods may be confiscated. Counsel therefore submitted that it is necessary that the proceedings in the Lartebiokorshie District Court should be stayed.

In opposing the application, counsel for the respondents contended that the goods were never seized from the applicant, but that they were lawfully seized from Jash Adebayo and Moro Sandah who are the defendants in the case before the Lartebiokorshie District Court. Counsel said these two persons attempted to cross the Ghana-Togo border in a vehicle No. KC 5001 with those goods which are worth over N¢76,000.00 without an export licence; conduct which is contrary to the Customs Ordinance, Cap. 167 (1951 Rev.). Counsel for the respondents further [p.16] submitted that the action before the said district court was instituted and that the hearing actually started some sixteen days before the writ of summons in the present action was issued, and that in any case proceedings under the Customs Ordinance enjoy precedence over all other proceedings and that the application for stay should not be entertained.

Before considering the submissions of both counsel, I will like to look a little closer at the rule unde

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.

Before considering the submissions of both counsel, I will like to look a little closer at the rule unde

SANDAH v. ASANTE AND ANOTHER

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT