U. T. C. ESTATES [GH] LTD. vs. NETWORK COMPUTER SYSTEMS [2004]DLCA6643

Date	2004-06-10
Suit No.	H3/288/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6643

AKOTO-BAMFO [MRS] J.A. [PRESIDING]

ASARE KORANG J. A.

ANINAKWAH J. A.

STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR RESPONDENT

OSEI OWUSU FOR BROOKMAN-AMISSAH FOR APPLICANT.

[2004]DLCA6643
																																						<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" >U. T. C.
ESTATES [GH] LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NETWORK
COMPUTER SYSTEMS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">OSEI OWUSU FOR
BROOKMAN-AMISSAH FOR APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

AKOTO-BAMFO [MRS] J.A. [PRESIDING],
ASARE KORANG J. A., ANINAKWAH J. A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>AKOTO-BAMFO,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>It
is the prayer of the applicant that execution of the orders made by Akwaah, J.
sitting at the High Court on the 6th of Februray, 2004 be stayed pending the
determination of the appeal filed or alternatively for an order for stay
pending the outcome of the inquiry to determine the payable interest on the
judgment debt. <o:p></o:p>It
is necessary to set out the order made by the learned Judge in order to
appreciate the issues raised. <o:p></o:p>With
respect to the payment by installment, I shall order the parties and their counsel
to put their heads together. If within 14 days they are unable to reach an
agreement as to the interest chargeable, I shall order the appointment of a
referee to go into accounts to ascertain the interest payable." <o:p></o:p>Clearly
the parties were required to attempt a settlement of the interest payable
within 14 days of the Order; should their attempt fail; the learned judge would
then make an order appointing a referee to go into accounts. <o:p></o:p>It
is our considered view that the orders as set out are non executable. It is of
significance the judgment of Dordzie J, is not the subject of the application
before us. <o:p></o:p>Again
it is obvious that in the application before us, the applicant is praying
alternatively for stay of execution pending the determination of the payable
interest on the judgment debt, the very relief which the learned judge had
clearly expressed an intention to determine upon the appointment of the
referee. Can it therefore be said that the Learned judge refused to make those
orders and therefore this court should make them under its general powers under
Rule 31 of C.I. 19? <o:p></o:p>We
think not. We are of the view that the motion filed before the Court below was
filed rather prematurely since the 14 days period had not obviously expired and
it is evident that the status quo would be maintained within the period. We
think that the fears expressed by learned counsel for the applicant and for
which reason the application was filed at the lower court were without basis. <o:p></o:p>At
any rate, if the learned Judge had ordered that a settlement be effected
failing which a referee would be appointed and he is subsequently urged stay
those orders, what was he expected to have done.? <o:p></o:p>After
carefully considering the submissions by both learned counsel, we are of the
view that it would serve the interests of justice if the applicant were asked
to make a retreat for the court below and for the learned judge to order the
appointment of the referee for them to go into accounts since the 14th day
period has obviously expired. <o:p></o:p>

The
application is accordingly dismissed. Cost of 3 million cedis is awarded
against the applicant.<o:p></o:p></main>