SANDAH vs. ASANTE AND ANOTHER [1970]DLHC2160

Date	1970-07-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2160

ABBAN J.

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPLICANT.

I. AHLIDJA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1970]DLHC2160
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >SANDAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ASANTE AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 14<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
17 JULY 1970.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

I. AHLIDJA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>This
application is brought under Order 34, r. 2 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), asking for an order staying certain
proceedings that are now pending before the Lartebiokorshie District Court
Grade I, until the present suit now pending in this court is heard and
determined.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the applicant, Miss Ayisi, argued with all seriousness, that if the action
in the said district court is allowed to proceed, it will prejudice the applicant’s
claim which is before this court, since the claim in the district court as well
as the claim in this court involves similar points of law. Learned counsel for
the applicant further submitted that the goods that are the subject-matter of
the dispute before the Lartebiokorshie District Court were wrongfully seized by
the respondents at the Ghana-Togo border, from the custody of the applicant’s
bailee, who is now one of the two defendants in the action proceeding in the
said district court. Counsel therefore contended that any decision against the
bailee by the said district court, will affect the applicant’s claim before
this court. Counsel further argued that the action before the Lartebiokorshie
District Court is quasi-criminal and that if the decision goes against the
applicant’s bailee, it is likely the goods may be confiscated. Counsel
therefore submitted that it is necessary that the proceedings in the
Lartebiokorshie District Court should be stayed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
opposing the application, counsel for the respondents contended that the goods
were never seized from the applicant, but that they were lawfully seized from
Jash Adebayo and Moro Sandah who are the defendants in the case before the
Lartebiokorshie District Court. Counsel said these two persons attempted to
cross the Ghana-Togo border in a vehicle No. KC 5001 with those goods which are
worth over N¢76,000.00 without an export licence; conduct which is contrary to
the Customs Ordinance, Cap. 167 (1951 Rev.). Counsel for the respondents
further submitted that the action before the said district court was instituted
and that the hearing actually started some sixteen days before the writ of
summons in the present action was issued, and that in any case proceedings
under the Customs Ordinance enjoy precedence over all other proceedings and
that the application for stay should not be entertained.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
considering the submissions of both counsel, I will like to look a little
closer at the rule under which this application is brought, namely, Order 34,
r. 2 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954. That rule reads
as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“If it
appear to the Court or a Judge, that there is in any cause or matter a question
of law, which it would be convenient to have decided before any evidence is
given or any question or issue of fact is tried, or before any reference is
made to a referee or an arbitrator, the Court or Judge may make an order
accordingly, and may direct such question of law to be raised for the opinion
of the Court, either by special case or in such other manner as the Court or
Judge may deem expedient, and all such further proceedings as the decision of such
question of law may render unnecessary may thereupon be stayed.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For the
court to grant a stay of proceedings under this rule, some question of law must
be adequately raised on the pleadings, and the court must be of the opinion
that a decision on that point of law will make the trial of any question of
fact not only undesirable but unnecessary. It seems </main>