Counsel for Plaintiff/Applicant: My Lady, my learned friend called me quite a while ago and informed me that he is running late. We have before you a motion on notice praying the Court for an order for stay of proceedings. I move in terms of the Motion paper, the supporting Affidavit and the annexures thereto. Our contention is that the special circumstances for our application as required by law lies in the fact that the Ruling of the Court that granted the misjoinder of the 2nd Defendant seeks to dismiss a well-founded cause of action against the Defendants who have been sued jointly and severally. And that if proceedings were not to be stayed, we would be compelled to proceed with the proceedings in this Court and if in the likely and most probable event that we were to succeed on Appeal, we may have to retrogress by way of going back only to add the 2nd Defendant again. Thereby carrying out what the Law preaches again i.e. prosecuting ones case in a piece meal approach. We therefore submit that in order not to be caught in what the law deprecates against, we pray humbly my Lady to stay proceedings so as not to render a successful Ruling from the Appellate Court nugatory. We therefore submit as we rely on our Motion paper as well as the Supporting Affidavit and the Supplementary Affidavits therein. We submit accordingly.
RULING
The Court has heard the oral submissions made by Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant on a motion for an order to stay proceedings in this suit pending an Appeal lodged against the Court’s Ruling of 13th April, 2022 which granted a misjoinder of the 2nd Defendant. The Court has also carefully studied the Affidavit in Support and the Exhibits. Even though Counsel for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent is not in Court to move an Affidavit in Opposition to this motion, the Court will deem same to have been moved on the authority of Republic v. Court of Appeal, Ex-parte: Eastern Alloys [2013] SCGLR which states that, “a motion on its due date even in the absence of the Lawyer of the Applicant and in this matter the Respondent is as good as moved and can be considered on its merits”. It is trite that special circumstances must occur to warrant stay of proceedings. See: Republic v. Committee of Inquiries RT Brisco Ghana Limited Ex-parte: RT Brisco Ghana Limited [1976] 1 GLR page 166. Having heard from Counsel for Applicant and having perused the Affidavit evidence, the Court is of the considered opinion that per the very wordi
