THE REPUBLIC vs DAVID ASEYE TAY & ANOR
2025
HIGH COURT
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2025
HIGH COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves Misyl Energy's restitution claim and subsequent contempt proceedings against Kwasi Osei Ofori. Despite a preliminary objection to a second contempt application being overruled, and an appeal followed, the court refused Ofori's request for a stay of proceedings due to the absence of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
The facts of this case are as follows: Misyl Energy was the complainant in a criminal case, The Republic v. David Aseye Tay . The accused was convicted, and the court, by way of restitution, granted a property to Misyl Energy. Kwasi Osei Ofori (the "Respondent/Applicant"), who was handling the property despite the Restitution Order being posted on it, was convicted for contempt of court, cautioned, and discharged. A second application for contempt was subsequently filed against the Respondent. Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary legal objection to the second contempt application. After considering the arguments, the court overruled the objection on 15 th August, 2024. Dissatisfied with the court's ruling, the Respondent's legal counsel filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and subsequently sought a Stay of Proceedings. The application was filed on 18 th September, 2024, with a return date set for 9 th October, 2024.
Applicant's Case
It is the case of the Respondent/Applicant (the ' Applicant') , that by a motion filed in this suit, the Applicant raised preliminary legal objection to a second application for contempt of court filed against him by the Respondent. That the court in its ruling dismissed all 5 grounds of Applicant's preliminary legal objection. That aggrieved by the ruling, the Applicant mounted an appeal against same on 3/10/2024. That the appeal is mounted in good faith to raise substantial matters of concern both in this case and for the development of other matters of substantial interest in law … That the grounds of appeal include jurisdictional matters, determination of which must be of great interest to this
court and the court of appeal. That even though they have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal by a Notice of Appeal in this matter, this court reserves the right of first hearing of an interlocutory application pursuant to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19) . That in order not to dissipate time and judicial resources on the matter, it is expedient for the honourable court to respectfully stay its hands pending the decision of the Court of Appeal. Further, that the grant shall ensure that the determination of the matter by the Court of Appeal is not rendered nugatory.
When this case came on for hearing on 25 th October, 2024, learned counsel for the Applicant argued that Appeal per se does not constitute a stay and indeed, that is Rule 27 of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI