OPPAN vs. FRANS & CO. LTD. [1984]DLCA954

Date	1984-04-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLCA954

ADADE J.S.C

EDUSEI JA

MENSA BOISON J.A.

BRIGHT GAISIE FOR THE APPLICANT.

DR. TACKIE OTOO FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1984]DLCA954
																																						<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">

OPPAN <o:p></o:p>

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

[1984-86] 1 GLR 281<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
4 APRIL 1984<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">

BRIGHT
GAISIE FOR THE APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

DR.
TACKIE OTOO 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">

ADADE J.S.C., EDUSEI AND MENSA BOISON JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The only
question calling for comment is whether this application is competent. The
issue was raised by the court suo motu.<o:p></o:p>On 6 May
1983 the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant in the High Court,
Sekondi (Ansah-Twum J.) in the total sum of ¢130,500 (¢125,500 special damages
and ¢5,000 general damages) with costs of ¢2,500. Dissatisfied with the
judgment the defendant has appealed to the Court of Appeal. Pending the appeal
the defendant applied to the High Court for a stay of execution.<o:p></o:p>The application
was ruled upon on 8 December 1983, 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">“By
Court: Upon the applicant’s application it is hereby ordered that execution
shall be stayed on condition that the entire judgment debt and costs in this
matter be paid into court within two months from today. If paid the plaintiffs
respondents will be entitled to have paid to them the costs awarded. Justice of
the High Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Claiming
that the conditions imposed by the High Court are onerous and inconvenient the
defendant-judgment debtor has applied to this court under rule 28 of the Court
of Appeal Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218) for a stay of execution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
affidavit, apart from alleging that his chances of succeeding in the appeal
“are fair especially on the question of the special damages awarded” and that
the plaintiff is a one-man company operate by a man “advanced in age and of
paltry means”, the defendant also says that to pay the whole judgment debt into
court as ordered by the High Court “would mean [that] I have to sell my landed
property as I do not have the liquid cash for this colossal sum, and this will
create great hardship on me.” Rules 27 and 28 of L.I. 218 as amended by the
Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1969 (L.I. 618), and the Court of Appeal
(Amendment) Rules, 1975 (L.I. 1002) read 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">“27. (1)
An appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution of proceedings under the
judgment or decision appealed from except where the Court below or the Court
otherwise orders . . .” [For our purposes the other amendments effected by L.I.
1002 are unimportant]. “28 . . . . where under any enactment an application may
be made either to the court below or to the Court it shall be made in the first
instance to the Court below, but if the court below refuses to grant the
application the applicant shall be entitled to have the application determined
by the Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Rule 28
of L.I. 218 (as amended by L.I. 618) clearly gives the judgment debtor the
right to apply to the Court of Appeal for a stay if a previous application to
the High Court is refused. The applicant says that by imposing terms which he
finds inconvenient and difficult to fulfil the court virtually refused his
application, and this entities him to repeat the application to this court. He
founds himself on Ghassoub v. Bibiani Wood Complex Ltd. [1984-86] 1 G.L.R. 271,
C.A. Is this argument tenable?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>