Try asking the following...
RULING
ATUGUBA JSC:-
The applicant moves "this honourable court to suspend the order of the Court of Appeal: Their Lordships Quaye, Addo and Acquaye JJA dated 30 March 2009 and to stay execution of the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi, Coram: His Lordship, Honyenuga dated 30 May 2008 upon the grounds contained in the accompanying affidavit and for any further order(s) as this honourable court may deem meet." (The emphasis is ours).
The facts grounding this application are stated in the following relevant paragraphs of the supporting affidavit:
"(3) On 30 May 2008, the High Court, Sekondi, presided over by his Lordship, Honyenuga J, delivered judgment in the suit between the plaintiff bank and the defendants.
(4) In the said judgment, his lordship ruled in favour of the defendants-respondents-respondents on their counterclaim and also awarded general damages of Gh¢300,000 together with costs of Gh¢6,000 against the plaintiff-appellant-applicant.
(5) Dissatisfied with the judgment, the plaintiff-appellant-applicant caused an appeal to be filed on its behalf challenging the judgment of the honourable court.
(6) On 14 July 2008, the plaintiff-appellant-applicant filed a motion to stay execution of the judgment of the High Court, Sekondi pending appeal.
(8) On 19 February 2009, the High Court, Sekondi presided over by His Lordship, Agbevor J dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's application to stay execution of the judgment of the court.
(9) On a repeat application to the Court of Appeal, Coram: Their Lordships Quaye, Addo and Acquaye JJA, the honourable court, on 30 March 2009 ordered the plaintiff-appellant-applicant to pay half of the judgment debt in the sum of Gh¢150,000 to the defendants-respondents-respondents pending the determination of the appeal. Annexed and marked as exhibit M is the ruling of the Court of Appeal. It is the contention of the plaintiff-appellant-applicant that exhibit M amounts to a refusal of the application for stay of execution.
(10) The plaintiff-appellant-applicant is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal because in its opinion, the defendants-respondents-respondents are currently impecunious and do not have the capability to pay back the money to the plaintiff- appellant-applicant should its appeal be successful and has accordingly filed an appeal against the said ruling in this honourable court.
(11) It is the prayer of the plaintiff-appellant-applicant that the ruling of the Court of Appeal be reversed and a