BOATENG V NTIAMOAH & ORS (C11/3/21) [2025] GHACC 35 (28 January 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OFFINSO, ASHANTI HELD ON TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 BEFORE HIS HONOUR PAUL ODURO ESQ SUIT NO. C11/3/21 GEORGE BOATENG PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT (Suing for and on behalf of siblings) H/NO. PLOT 12 BLOCK ‘E’ BREMAN WEST-KUMASI VS 1. YAA NTIAMAH 2. YAW OPPONG 3. YAA BOADU ALL OF AKOMADAN, ASHANTI DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RULING ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have listened to the arguments for and against the application for Stay of Execution of the Judgment of this Court dated 31st July 2023 in respect of the disputed house with Plot Number OM/474 situate at a place commonly known and called Old Mereku at Akomadan. I have also gone through the documents filed in support and in opposition to the application. It is the law, that in cases of stay of execution pending appeal, the court is faced with two decisions. 1 First, the decision that a successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of his victory. Secondly, the Applicant should be assured that if he is successful on appeal, it would not be rendered nugatory. See: INTEGRATED INVESTMENTS LTD v GIHOC DISTILLERIES CO. LTD [2008] 14 MLRG 91 CA Stay of Execution means, suspending the enforcement of a judgment or a ruling under the procedure prescribed by law. It also means, delaying or imposing fetters on a judgment creditor from obtaining a relief after a decision had been given in his favour. See: REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA; EX PARTE SIDI [1987-88] 2 GLR 170 SC OPPAN v FRANS AND CO. LTD [1984-86] 1 GLR 281 CA OSU STOOL v UNILEVER (GHANA) LTD [2003-2005] 1 GLR 274 CA REPUBLIC v CONDUAH; EX PARTE AABA (SUBSTITUTED BY) ASMAH [2013- 2014] 2 SCGLR 1032 The law has laid down the ambit or the parameters within which a stay of execution pending appeal should be considered. First, the Applicant must establish an interest to be protected, failing which his application must fail. Secondly, the court must bridge the gap in the intervening period, between the delivery of the judgment or the ruling and the time the appeal will be heard, so that if the Applicant wins, it would not be rendered nugatory. Thirdly, whether the applicant would be returned to the status quo if he wins on appeal. 2 Again, which of the parties will suffer greater hardship if the application is granted or refused. Also, whether there are exceptional or special circumstances to warrant it to be granted. Furthermore, whether the subject matter in dispute will be destroyed if the application is granted or refused. Another factor is whether there are arguable questions of law to be decided on appeal, and the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate same. See: EBOE v EBOE [1961] 1 GLR 432 ADDO v GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LTD [2011] 30 GMJ 56 SC NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED v YIADOM CONSTRUCTION & ELECTRICAL WORKS & OTHERS [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 93 DJOKOTO & AMISSAH v BBC INDUSTRIALS CO. (GHANA) LTD & ANOTHER [2011] 2 SCGLR 825 It is therefore important to observe, that the practice of the courts is not to put fetters on victorious parties to prevent them from reaping the fruits of their victory in legal proceedings by granting stay of execution. However, stay of execution would be granted if arguable points of law are demonstrated by the Applicant which can be canvassed on appeal. See: ACQUAH v TAGOE [2017-2020] 2 SCGLR 73 In this case, the property under consideration is a house which the Respondents have rented portions of same out to other persons upon the Honourable Court entering Judgment in their favour. The Applicant who has brought the instant application for Stay of Execution of the Judgment does not even stay in the said property. 3 In cases of Stay of Execution pending appeal, the burden is on the Applicant to convince the court that there are special circumstances to warrant the application being granted. See: GOLDEN BEACH HOTELS GHANA LTD. v PACK PLUS INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2012] 1 SCGLR 452 NII TETTEH OPREMREH II AND ANOTHER v KOMEXA LTD., LANDS COMMISSION & OTHERS [2021] 171 GMJ 152 SC I have gone through the Applicant’s application but do not see any merit in it. The Respondents will suffer greater hardship if the application is granted. Accordingly, the application fails and same is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. SGD. PAUL ODURO (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) COUNSEL STEPHEN B. ALEWABAH. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT. NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS. AUTHORITIES 1. INTEGRATED INVESTMENTS LTD v GIHOC DISTILLERIES CO. LTD [2008] 14 MLRG 91 CA 2. REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA; EX PARTE SIDI [1987-88] 2 GLR 170 SC 4 3. OPPAN v FRANS AND CO. LTD [1984-86] 1 GLR 281 CA 4. OSU STOOL v UNILEVER (GHANA) LTD [2003-2005] 1 GLR 274 CA 5. REPUBLIC v CONDUAH; EX PARTE AABA (SUBSTITUTED BY) ASMAH [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1032 6. EBOE v EBOE [1961] 1 GLR 432 7. ADDO v GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LTD [2011] 30 GMJ 56 SC 8. NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED v YIADOM CONSTRUCTION & ELECTRICAL WORKS & OTHERS [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 93 9. DJOKOTO & AMISSAH v BBC INDUSTRIALS CO. (GHANA) LTD & ANOTHER [2011] 2 SCGLR 825 10. ACQUAH v TAGOE [2017-2020] 2 SCGLR 73 11. REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, ACCRA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION); EX PARTE HESSE (INVESTCOM CONSORTIUM HOLDINGS SA & SCANCOM LTD (INTERESTED PARTIES) [2007-2008] SCGLR 1230 12. GOLDEN BEACH HOTELS GHANA LTD. v PACK PLUS INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2012] 1 SCGLR 452 13. NII TETTEH OPREMREH II AND ANOTHER v KOMEXA LTD., LANDS COMMISSION & OTHERS [2021] 171 GMJ 152 SC 5