GHANA NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION vs. BAIDEN [1988]DLCA744

Date	1988-07-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLCA744

WUAKU J.S.C.

LAMPTEY JA

ESSIEM J.A.

G.O. LINDSAY FOR THE APPLICANTS.

PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLCA744
																																						<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" >GHANA NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BAIDEN <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 163<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
13 JULY 1988<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">

G.O. LINDSAY FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

PETER ALA ADJETEY 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">

WUAKU J.S.C., LAMPTEY AND ESSIEM JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF WUAKU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Wuaku
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. This is an application by the
defendant-appellants-applicants for a stay of execution. The applicants had
failed previously before the trial court to obtain a stay of execution. The
judgment sought to be stayed ended like this:<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">“Apart
from his normal entitlements which the defendants have agreed to pay, I will
award the plaintiff damages, calculated in this manner: All the salaries the
plaintiff would have been entitled to from January 1983 to January 1985 plus
all allowances which the plaintiff would have been entitled to had his
appointment not been unjustifiably terminated. Since it is not quite clear what
moneys have been paid since to the plaintiff and how much he is entitled to I
will order that the defendants file a statement of all the entitlements of the
plaintiff together with the damages as assessed within two weeks of this order.
Since the plaintiff is entitled to be paid for his medical expenses, I will
order that the defendants refund to him all medical fees paid up to January
1985. There will be costs of ¢25,000 to the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
judgment was dated 10 February 1988.<o:p></o:p>It seems
that before anything could be done in furtherance of the judgment the plaintiff
brought an application for leave to review the judgment aforesaid. In his
ruling dated 30 March 1988, the learned judge said:<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">“On the
evidence before me I am satisfied that there is an error or mistake apparent on
the face of the record and failure to review the judgment would amount to a
denial of justice. I would in the circumstances grant the application and
review the judgment of 10 February 1988 by deleting the offensive order and
substituting therefor the following:<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">‘All the
salary the plaintiff would have obtained from January 1983 to the date of
judgment plus all allowances, which the plaintiff would have been entitled to
had his appointment not been unjustifiably terminated.’ The sentence, ‘... so
exhibit P was sent to the plaintiff ...’ is accordingly deleted from the judgment
and in its place is substituted, ‘so until the date of judgment the plaintiff .
. .’”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 30
March 1988 assuming there was a review amounting to a rehearing, the judgment
merely declared the rights of the parties. It is not a final but a preliminary
and therefore interlocutory judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 5
April 1988 the defendants filed a notice of appeal and on 6 April 1988 filed an
application for a stay of execution of the judgment. That application was
refused on 31 May 1988 and in his ruling the learned judge said, among other
things, the following:<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">“On 10
February 1988 I gave judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants and
awarded him costs of ¢25,000. This Judgment was subsequently reviewed to
include in the damages the plaintiff ‘s entitlements, as computed by him under
the judgment which comes to about ¢3,283,510. The defendants on the other hand
have computed the plaintiff’s total entitlement to be ¢1,548,263.16. The
defendants have appealed against the judgments and now apply for a stay of
execution ... I think the plaintiff stands to suffer greater hardship if he is
denied whatever he is entitled to now. On the other hand, since the parties
cannot agree on the amount due to the plaintiff it would be unfair to compel
the defendants to pay the plaintiff all that he claims he is entitled to. In
the circumstances, I would grant the application on these terms: That the
defendants are to pay to the plaintiff ¢800,000 less whatever amo</main>