GHASSOUB vs. BIBIANI WOOD COMPLEX LTD. [1983]DLCA917

Date	1983-05-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLCA917

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN J.A

NYANOR FOR THE APPLICANT.

OWUSU BEMPAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1983]DLCA917
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

GHASSOUB <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 271<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
3 MAY 1983<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

NYANOR FOR THE APPLICANT. <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">

EDUSEI, MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>Edusei
J.A. delivered the ruling of the court. Nyanor, counsel for the applicant,
moves in terms of the motion paper and supporting affidavit for the application
for stay of execution pending appeal. He contends that the issue was whether a
service on a visitor is service on the solicitor. He further contends that the
application in the court below was virtually dismissed. He therefore refers to
Order 9, r. 19 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A)
to support his application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Owusu
Bempah, counsel for the respondent, on the other hand in opposing the
application contends that the application in the court below was granted
because the court below ordered that three-quarters of ¢150,366.36 (the
judgment debt) plus costs of ¢8,000 should be paid to the plaintiff and
one-quarter was to be paid into court. Counsel therefore submitted that the
application be refused.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We think
this is a proper case to grant a stay since there are arguable points in the
appeal as to whether service on a visitor in a solicitor’s office is service on
the solicitor. The stay we have granted is in respect of the whole judgment
debt of ¢150,366.36 and the costs of ¢8,000.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

In the
court below the court awarded costs of ¢1,000 when the applicant’s motion for
stay was virtually dismissed. In the circumstances, we hold the view that we
also can grant costs of ¢1,000 to the applicant to offset the costs awarded in
the court below.<o:p></o:p></main>