[2007]DLCA6744 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">JOHN BANDOH<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(PETITIONER/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">INDAMINA COMPANY LTD.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CIVIL MOTION H3/233/2006 </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> DATE<b>: </b>16TH FEBRUARY 2007<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="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"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MR. JOE ATTIPOE FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="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"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MR. GEORGE SARPONG FOR PETITIONER/RESPONDENT<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">KANYOKE J.A. [PRESIDING], KUSI-APPIAH J.A., APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">APALOO J.A.: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">This ruling arises from a preliminary legal objection filed in this Court pursuant to Rule 16 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules as amended. The objection taken by the Respondent to the hearing of the appeal and or motion stated as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">1. As an appeal has been lodged in this Court against the decision of the High Court, an application for stay of proceedings ought to have been brought at first instance to the High Court before a repeat application can be made to this Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">2. The present motion is simply a repeat of an earlier one brought by the Respondent Company and dismissed by the High Court and pending an Appeal before this Court. Hearing this motion will therefore amount to determining the appeal summarily. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">3. The present application has been filed out of time. We ordered arguments to be filed in respect of the preliminary objection for our determination and noted with concern that both Counsel went beyond the scope of the objection the Respondent had raised. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">We gathered from the facts that the Court below dismissed a motion for stay of proceedings filed at the instance of the Appellant/Respondent. Being dissatisfied with the refusal to stay proceedings at the Court below, the Appellant appealed the ruling to this Court and subsequently brought a motion for stay of execution which was also dismissed by the lower Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In his submissions to this Court, Counsel for the Respondent argued that what is before this Court is a motion on notice for stay of proceedings for winding up of Indamina the Respondent herein. Counsel submitted that since an appeal has already been lodged, an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal ought to have been brought at first instance in the High Court, then in the event of a failure of the application at the High Court, a repeat application can then be lodged in this Court to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> Counsel stressed that the appellant rather filed an application for stay of execution pending appeal at the Court below which was dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">From the facts it is not in dispute that the application for stay of proceedings was dismissed by the Court below on 7th February 2006 and that resulted in the appeal which was filed on 8th February, 2006. A motion for stay of execution pending appeal was equally dismissed on 27th February 2006 by the Court below and on 1st March 2006 appellant filed a motion for stay of proceedings in this Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">From the dates recited herein there is no doubt that the appellant's interlocutory appeal was filed within the 21 days envisaged in the rules for such appeals. We therefore hold that the interlocutory appeal was filed within time. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Counsel for the Respondent's reliance on the Supreme Court's case of Takyi vrs Ghassoub [1987-88] 2 GLR 452 is unfortunate and quite misleading. The Court of Appeal [Amendment] Rules, 1998 C.I. 21 which came into force on 27th May, 1998 subsequent to that Judgment enlarged the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. By Rule 27A of C.I. 21 the Court of Appeal was vested with jurisdiction to grant stay of proceedings pending appeal. The words in the Constitutional Instrument are unambiguously clear and I quote the same for their full effect; <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">"R 27A: the Court may in any interlocutory appeal, Civil or Criminal before it, grant stay of proceedings pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal, subject to such terms as the Court considers fit". <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Indeed Rule 27A of C.I. 21 reversed the Supreme Court's decision in Takyi vrs: Ghassoub [supra].<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">It is noted that the interlocutory appeal having been properly filed after the lower Court had refused to stay proceedings, there was no need for the appellant to bring a fresh application before the lower Court again for stay of proceedings as a condition for invoking the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal as suggested by Counsel for the Respondents. Counsel's view if followed will lead to an absurdity. Counsel no doubt