RICHMOND AGGREY (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs INVESTCOM CONSORTIUM HOLDINGS S.A. & 2 ORS. (DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) [2010]DLCA7507

RICHMOND AGGREY (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) vs INVESTCOM CONSORTIUM HOLDIN... [2010]DLCA7507

Date	2010-02-25
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/27/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7507

ARYEETEY JA [PRESIDING]

ANIN YEBOAH JA

MARFUL-SAU JA

YONNY KULENDI FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

FELIX NTRAKWAH WITH TONY FORSON AND BENJAMIN

SACKAR FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT

THADDEUS SORY FOR 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA7507
																																						<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" >RICHMOND
AGGREY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs<o:p></o:p>INVESTCOM
CONSORTIUM HOLDINGS S.A. &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO.
H2/27/09&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 25TH
FEBRUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

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

YONNY KULENDI FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

FELIX NTRAKWAH WITH TONY FORSON AND
BENJAMIN<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;SACKAR FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;THADDEUS SORY FOR 3RD
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;ARYEETEY JA [PRESIDING], ANIN YEBOAH JA, MARFUL-SAU JA<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANIN
YEBOAH, JA <o:p></o:p>It
is the duty of an applicant who invokes the jurisdiction of this court under
Rule 27A of CI 19 as amended by CI 21 of 1998 to demonstrate to the court that
there exist special circumstances to warrant a stay of proceedings pending
appeal. <o:p></o:p>We
have perused in detail all the affidavits filed by the applicants in this
motion. Indeed none of the affidavits filed has even faintly demonstrated that
special circumstances exist for us to stay proceedings pending actively at the
High Court which is seised with jurisdiction of the matter.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Procedurally, the parties to this proceedings,
as the affidavits and the exhibited pleadings show, the Applicant has indeed
lodged his defence subsequent to entry of appearance to contest the issues
raised by the pleadings. It will therefore be unjust in a case in which three
defendants are involved and indeed filed their statements of defence to stay
proceedings to enable the applicant to proceed with the arbitration in which
the applicant has indeed discontinued against the second and third defendants.
To stay the entire proceedings in this suit in which three defendants are
parties and equal before the law will be unjust under the circumstances.<o:p></o:p>No
irretrievable loss has been demonstrated before us. The interest of the other
defendants, that is, the second and third defendants should be considered in
this application. The exhibits annexed as RA, RA1, RA2 and RA3 show that the
Applicant has abandoned the arbitration proceedings against the second and
third defendants. It would therefore be unjust to stay the entire proceedings
when the two other defendants are more than willing to proceed with the matter
before the High Court. <o:p></o:p>In
the circumstances, the application is thus refused and accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>