WASSEM ATTIEH v. KOGLEX (GH) LTD. & OTHERS

ADZOE, J.S.C.:

In this application the defendants/judgment Debtors are asking the Court to grant them (i) an order of stay of execution of the judgment dated 9th May, 2001 and (ii) an order setting aside part of that judgment of 9th May, 2001, which ordered interest on the judgment debt awarded against them at the prevailing bank rate until the date of payment; (iii) they also seek an order substituting a new order for interest on the judgment debt at 4% after judgment till the date of payment. The applicants are of the view that the order for interest was wrong and even void and must, therefore, be set aside. I do not see what could make that order void.

The plaintiff-respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the application, contending that the application "is misconceived as it is not sanctioned by any rules of the Supreme Court."

The facts: In 1991 the plaintiff obtained judgment at the High Court for the sum of ¢74,071,000.00 being the balance outstanding on the value of goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The action was initially against the defendants only. The defendants denied the claim and alleged that it was the co-defendants who bought the goods; they therefore joined the co-defendants. The trial High Court's judgment was against the defendants and co-defendants jointly and severally. For various reasons, all the three parties — the plaintiff, the defendants and the co-defendants-appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court judgment on grounds that it was against the weight of evidence, and entered judgment against the co-defendants alone as being liable to the plaintiffs claim. The plaintiff and co-defendants appealed to the Supreme Court against that judgment and on 9th May, 2001 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, and entered judgment for plaintiff against the defendants and absolved the co-defendants from any liability. The court awarded the sum of ¢74,071,000.00 against the defendants jointly and severally with interest at the current bank rate from 1st May, 1990 to the date of payment.

The Defendants react: The defendants immediately applied for a review of the judgment but did not contest the award of interest in the review. The court dismissed the review application.

The instant application: It was not until 7th May, 2002 that the defendants filed this present application, citing the award of the interest as an error which the court must “c