THE REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL DIVISION 9), ACCRA, EX PARTE: ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED
January 18, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)
- PWAMANG JSC
- OWUSU (MS.) JSC
- HONYENUGA JSC
- AMADU JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
January 18, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Pwamang JSC, issued reasons for a unanimous ruling granting certiorari and mandamus in an application arising from garnishee execution proceedings in the High Court (Commercial Division 9), Accra. After the High Court made a garnishee order absolute against the applicant for the entire judgment debt, the applicant appealed and sought a stay first in the Court of Appeal (refused) and then in the High Court. The High Court, accepting an objection predicated on the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (C.I.132), dismissed the stay application as incompetent. The Supreme Court held that C.I.132, which amended Rule 27 and revoked Rule 28 of C.I.19, regulates the effect of appeals on enforcement but does not alter Rule 21’s settled practice: the lower court retains jurisdiction over interlocutory applications, including stays, until the appeal is entered by transmission of the record. The Court further clarified that revocation of Rule 28 did not abolish the practice of repeating a refused stay in the Court of Appeal before transmission. It quashed the High Court’s ruling and ordered the High Court to hear the stay application on its merits.
RULING
PWAMANG JSC:-
My Lords, on the 18th January, 2022, we unanimously granted the prayers of the applicant in this motion but reserved the reasons. We now proceed to give our reasons for the decision. This is an application invoking our supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court (Commercial Division 9), Accra, in relation to its ruling declining jurisdiction in a motion praying for the suspension of a garnishee order absolute and stay of garnishee proceedings pending appeal.
There is pending before the High Court proceedings of execution of its judgment for payment of money. Following the grant of garnishee orders nisi against two banks, the court made an order absolute against the applicant alone for payment of the whole of the judgment debt to the judgment creditor/interested party. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant lodged an appeal against it in the Court of Appeal. After initially applying to the Court of Appeal for stay of execution of the order pending the appeal and meeting a refusal, the applicant returned to the High Court and prayed it to suspend the order and stay the proceedings of execution pending the determination of the appeal under its inherent jurisdiction. But counsel for the judgment creditor took objection to the hearing of the application by the High Court arguing, that the power of the High Court to stay execution of its judgment or order that has been appealed against has been taken away by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (C.I.132). In her ruling dated 3rd November, 2021, the judge upheld the objection and did not hear the application on the merits but dismissed it as incompetent. It is that decision that the applicant prays us to quash by an order of certiorari on ground of blatant error of law apparent on the record and further, for order of mandamus compelling the trial judge to hear and determine the application on the merits.
In these present proceedings, the Counsel for the applicant, Mr J Kusi-Menkah Premo, argues that the High Court judge committed a blatant error of law by holding that she has no jurisdiction in the matter. He submits that a court has inherent jurisdiction to stay execution or proceedings of execution of its judgment or order even if the judgment or order has been appealed against. This power, he contends, exists in the court so long as execution has not been completed and it is inherent in the court. According to him, since the court’s order absolute for the garnishee to pay