BENG vs. NYARKO AND OTHERS [1975]DLHC369

Date	1975-11-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC369

MENSA BOISON J.

A. A. MUNUFIE FOR THE APPLICANT.

EWUSIE-WILSON FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1975]DLHC369
																																						<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" >BENG<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;vs. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NYARKO AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 78<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:
4 NOVEMBER 1975.<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">

A. A. MUNUFIE FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

EWUSIE-WILSON 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
motion at the instance of the plaintiff-judgment creditor praying for leave to
levy execution inspite of a notice of appeal filed by the defendant-judgment
debtor. The application is purported to be by virtue of rule 27 of the Court of
Appeal Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218), as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment)
Rules, 1969 (L.I. 618), r.2 made on 18 April 1969. Shorn of the inconsequential
parts, rule 27 provides:<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">“An
appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the
judgment or decision appealed from except so far as the Court below or the
Court may otherwise order.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This made
it necessary for the successful party to seek an order to go into execution
where the losing party had given notice of appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
present position of the law, however, is that rule 27 has been further amended
by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1975 (L.I. 1002), r. 2 which now
provides that:<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">“An
appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution of proceedings under the
judgment or decision appealed from except where the Court below [i.e. the High
Court or circuit court] or the Court otherwise orders . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Rule 27
(3) which provides for a limited stay of execution of proceedings for seven
days in respect of the judgment or decision or of any application arising from
rule 27 does not arise in this case. The position thus is, except as provided
by rule 27 (3) a successful party has the right to execution, unless on the
application of the losing party the High Court or the Court of Appeal makes an
order otherwise.<o:p></o:p>In the
present case the judgment in issue was obtained on 31 July 1974. The amending
rule under L.I. 1002 was made on 4 February 1975 and notified in the Gazette on
7 February 1975. Although there is a presumption against retrospective
operation of enactments, the general rule of construction is that there are no
vested rights in procedure or costs. As stated by Lord Blackburn in Gardner v.
Lucas (1878) 3 App.Cas. 582 at p. 603, H.L. “Alterations in the form of
procedure are always retrospective, unless there is some good reason or other
why they should not be.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Court
of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1975 (L.I. 1002), is silent on the point. I find
no reasonable cause why rule 27 should not be retrospective. I therefore hold
that rule 27 as amended by L.I. 1002, r. 2 will apply to the judgment obtained
on 31 July 1974. It follows therefore that the plaintiff judgment-creditor need
not apply for leave to go into execution. The application is thus misconceived
and is dismissed. As the point was taken by the court itself I do not make any
order as to costs.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><</main>