THE REPUBLIC vs MANASSEH AWUNI AZURE & ORS

Counsel for Respondents: My Lady, we have before you motion on notice for stay of proceedings. I move in terms of the motion paper, supporting affidavit and annexures. The applicant would rely on the affidavit in support. The instant application is occasioned by the applicant’s application for committal of contempt, call it the second contempt application before this court. as the applicant herein has deposed to in paragraph 2 of its affidavit in support, that application for contempt is not only misguided but an abuse of the process by a professed Christian organization that seeks to use the court for a battle in vengeance as it is only satisfying by imprisonment of the respondents, and this is why this is important to us. That it is a fact that the order of this court committing the respondents to contempt have been fully complied with but this applicant will only be satisfied if they are committed to prison. It is unhappy that thy pay fines. This has occasioned the appeal exhibited to the instant application seeking among others that the Court of Appeal should hold that contempt is to the court and non-other. There can be no contempt of a church, their dissatisfaction therefore, that the apology was only to the court and not the church is bizarre and in fact unconstitutional. It is not known to the jurisprudence of this court. We have in the circumstances demonstrated by the particulars by the grounds of appeal that the second contempt application should be stayed pending the decision in the appeal. We have seen their affidavit in opposition and we would say that paragraph ‘5’ is a confusion they brought upon themselves because the suit number in the instant application is the same as the suit number in the application already determined by this court. We argue further that even if the two are different, the second contempt application cannot exist without the first because it is the alleged non-compliance with the order of the court in the first that has occasioned the second. Again, they argued that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant stay of proceedings, we contend that the detailed grounds of appeal demonstrate beyond doubt that there are special circumstances warranting the grant. I conclude by referring the court to Riasand Ventures Limited v. Registrar of Companies [2018] DLSC 173, where the Supreme Court held – reads out. We respectfully submit that if this application is not granted and the second contempt application were heard