Dzide And 2 Others Vrs, Ghana Private Road Transport And 5 Others (E1/17/2013) [2024] GHAHC 326 (18 July 2024)

INTHESUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE INTHEHIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (COURT 1)HOHELDON THURSDAY18TH JULY2024BEFOREJUSTICEJOHN EKOW MENSAH. SUITNO. E1/17/2013 1. DANIELYAODZIDE(DECD.) Subst. by Francis KwamiDzide Subst. by AnthonyDzide PLAINTIFFS 2. UNITYCO-OPERATIVETRASPORT SOCIETY 3. PROGRESSIVETRANSPORT OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION VERSUS 1. GHANA PRIVATE ROADTRANSPORT 2. FRANCIS AFUM (DECD.) 3. VINCENTNYINASE DEFENDANTS 4. KOSI AWUMEY(Subst. by Godwin Mensah) 5. MOHAMMEDBABS MERIGA 6. JUDEYAODZIDE RULING This is aMotion onNotice for Stay ofExecutionPending Appealfiled by Counselfor and onbehalf ofPlaintiffs/Appellants/Applicants. Applicant’s Counsel has attached to the Motion paper affidavit in support which explainsthat the Applicants being aggrieved by the judgment ofthis Court delivered on 25/4/2024 have mounted an appeal against same at the Court of Appeal. 1 According to Applicants, even though they have filed an appeal against the Court’s judgment, Defendants/Respondents are poised to go into execution and have served themwithEntryofJudgment. Applicants further say in their supplementary affidavit in support of the Motion that their ground of appeal that “the judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial”will compel the Court ofAppeal to re-examine documents exhibited during the trial. And that the Applicants stand the chance of succeeding with the Appeal Notification. Applicants and their prayers with the plea that if this application is refused, it will cause veryseverehardship tothem. Counsel forthe Defendants/Judgment/Creditors are opposedto the Motion and have filed their affidavit in opposition. In the main, Defendants/Judgment/Creditors/Respondents deny the fact that Applicant’s Appeal is likely to succeed as Applicants have no issues of law that can convincingly be canvassed before the Court of Appeal. It is the Respondents’ prayer that the present Motionbe dismissed as their appealat the CourtofAppealis likelyto fail woefully. In the famous case of NDK Financial Services v. Yiadom Construction & Electrical Works& Ors. [2007-2008] SCGLR93. The Supreme Court in holding 1 stated on Principles guiding the grant of Stay as follows: “The main principle adopted by the Courts was what the position of the Appellant would be if the judgment was to be enforced and the appeal was successful. In effect, the essential point in considering such application was whether Appellant would be returned to the status quo ante should the appeal 2 succeed. Another determining principle was which of the parties would suffer greater hardship should the application be granted or refused”. The Apex Court continued to state that in determining the first principle, the Court must examine the judgment appealed against to find out whether the appeal disclosesarguable points oflaw. Atpage 27ofthejudgment thatthe Applicants seekto staythe learned Judge stated: 9.2 “I hold that the Lorry Park Lands form part of the estate of the late Frank ShineDzide; and had neverbelonged to the Sam Dzide familyneither doI find any fraud or fraudulent transaction proven in the documents Defendants presented in the suit covering the subject matter land. I dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim as unproven. Based on the same analysis and assessment of the evidential trial, I declare the 1st Defendant as the owner of the disputed land, having proven to have validly purchased the same from the administrators of the estate of the late FrankShine Dzide”. Apart from finding that the judgment of the Court is declaratory, Applicants have not demonstrated to this Court any arguable issues in law that can be canvassed in the Court of Appeal as relates to the judgment that seek this Court’s ordertostay pending the hearing oftheAppeal. That is why this Court will refuse this application for stay and dismiss same accordingly. (Sgd.)John EkowMensah, J. Justice ofthe HighCourt(Court 1) 3 Ho Lawyers: Mr.C. K.Koka - Counselforthe Plaintiffs/Applicant. vmo* 4