AKUAFO ADANFO MARKETING CO. vs. STEPHEN YAW MENSAH [2007]DLHC7385

Date	2007-07-06
Suit No.	E9/52/04
Citation No.	[2007]DLHC7385

ALHAJI M.A. MUSTAPHA J.

<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation"  hidden>[2007]DLHC7385</p>
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">AKUAFO ADANFO MARKETING CO.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;
line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">STEPHEN YAW MENSAH<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">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="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;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-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ALHAJI M.A. MUSTAPHA, J.<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This
is a motion for stay of execution of the Judgment of the High Court. The
judgment of the court referred to reads: “In sum, I therefore order that the
defendant be made liable for the loss of 119 bags of cocoa. His counter claim is
entirely dismissed. I award the plaintiff costs of ¢8 million”. It is the
execution of this judgment that the applicant wants stayed. The case of Scatech
Ltd. v. Pettingland Farms Ltd &amp; ors. (1987-88) I GLR pg. 51, the Court of
Appeal held:— <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">“The successful party could not be
deprived of the fruit of his judgment unless it could be satisfactorily shown
that if the stay was not granted, it would create irreparable damage, the court
in the exercise of their absolute and unfettered discretion to grant or refuse
an application for stay would therefore only grant a stay if there were special
circumstances, which have been deposed to in an affidavit.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Exceptional
circumstances where a stay may be granted were such as for instance where
execution will destroy the subject matter of the action, or deprive the
appellant of the means of prosecuting the appeal or where the result of the
appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay of execution was not granted. In
this case, the applicant was the employee of the respondent and he was
dismissed when the offence was allegedly detected. Now, from the judgment, he
is to pay for the loss of 119 bags of cocoa. Costs of ¢8 million was also
awarded against him. If the applicant is forced to pay the judgment debt, there
will be nothing left with which he will prosecute the appeal. This is an
exceptional circumstance, which the court has to consider. Counsel for the
respondent has submitted that the plaintiff/judgment creditor is competent to
refund any monies that may be paid by defendant to the plaintiff in the
unlikely event where the appeal succeeds. If the applicant is made to pay the
amount to the respondent, then his application for stay will have been refused.
In the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeal, Accra: Ex parte Sidi GLRD
(1987-88) pg 172 the Supreme Court held that: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">“When an applicant in Ghana applied
for stay of execution of a judgment debt, he was asking the court to suspend
the actual payment of the debt pending the outcome of the appeal. If he was in
effect, asked to pay the whole judgment debt, whether into court or not, he
would justifiably consider it an abuse of language and an indulgence in legal
technicalities to argue that he had been granted his application for stay.
Consequently, an alleged grant having attached to it onerous conditions
stultifying the substantive expectations of an applicant was a refusal. In the
instant case, the High Court order that the whole of the judgment of ¢1,000,000
be paid into court within 3 months in the circumstances of the case and within
the context of Ghanaian conditions amounted virtually to a dismissal of the
applicant’s motion because the average Ghanaian could not fulfill them and was
therefore a refusal ab inito”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p>

</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The
motion for stay of execution will therefore be granted. The motion for stay of
execution is therefore granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p></span></main>