BAIDEN vs. ANSAH [1973]DLHC2366

Date	1973-08-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2366

BAIDOO J.

MESSRS. GAISIE SCHECK & CO. FOR THE APPLICANT.

K. E. A. SEKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2366
																																						<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" >BAIDEN <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ANSAH <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
SEKONDI]<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;[1973]
2 GLR 33<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
14 AUGUST 1972.<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">

MESSRS. GAISIE SCHECK &amp; CO. FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

K. E. A. SEKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.<o:p></o:p>On 14
June 1972, this court presided over by Coussey J, gave judgment in favour of
the plaintiff (hereafter called the judgment creditor). Aggrieved by the said
judgment the defendant (hereafter called the judgment debtor) filed notice of
appeal on 16 June 1972. By virtue of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218),
r. 27 as amended by the Court of Appeal Rules, 1969 (L.I. 618), the appeal
operated as a stay of execution and would have preserved the status quo ante pending
the determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal. Anxious however to
enjoy the fruits of his victory, the judgment creditor filed a motion in this
court on 17 July 1972 praying for leave to go into execution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said
motion was heard on 31 July 1972 by Coussey J. who made an order that the
judgment creditor should go into execution forthwith. In the absence of a
certified true copy of the said order, I have accepted the word of counsel that
the order made on 31 July 1972 by Coussey J. gave the judgment creditor leave
to go into execution forthwith.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By this
motion filed on 8 August 1972 by the judgment debtor, he is praying that his
four houses attached by fi. fa. taken out by the judgment creditor be released
from attachment, and that execution of the fi. fa. be suspended by this court.
At the hearing of the motion learned counsel for the judgment creditor took the
preliminary objection that this court presided over by me has no power to
entertain the application because of the following two reasons:<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">(1)
Having already granted the judgment creditor leave to go into execution, the
High Court cannot order a stay of execution except by way of review, and a
review can be ordered only by Coussey J. who made the order. No other judge has
power to review Coussey J.’s order of 31 July 1972.<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">(2) The
application before the court is not authorised by any enactment and is wholly
irregular.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I cannot
help observing that the determination of the two points raised by the judgment
creditor’s counsel will substantially dispose of the judgment debtor’s
application one way or the other as I don’t see any other point that calls for
determination.<o:p></o:p>With
respect to the first objection, it is trite law that an application for review
can be dealt with only by the judge who made the order. Order 39, r. 1 (b) of
the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), expressly
states that the aggrieved party “. . . . may apply for a review of the judgment
or order to the judge who gave judgment or made the order.” I am not therefore
purporting in this application to review any judgment or order made by my
brother Coussey J.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
senior registrar of this court appreciates the situation and has therefore
refrained from placing before me the judgment debtor’s motion filed on 1 August
1972 praying for review of Coussey J.’s order of 31 July 1972 since in view of
the curr</main>