SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE vs. TULLOW GHANA CO. [2014]DLHC3666

Date	2014-03-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BDC/8/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLHC3666

GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

MENKA-PREMO FOR DEFENDANT/J/DR/APP

THADDEUS SORY FOR PLAINTIFF/J/CR/RESP

[2014]DLHC3666
																																						<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" >SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TULLOW GHANA CO.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. BDC/8/13&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; 7TH
MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MENKA-PREMO FOR DEFENDANT/J/DR/APP <o:p></o:p>THADDEUS SORY FOR PLAINTIFF/J/CR/RESP <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

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

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>In this application defendant/judgment/debtor/applicant (hereafter
called the “Applicant”) prays this court for a review of the award of costs and
the dismissal of defendant’s application for stay of execution pending appeal.
The applicant contends that the court failed to look at the supplementary
affidavit attached to the applicant’s application for stay of execution and
that if the court had given consideration to the said supplementary affidavit,
the court would not have arrived at the conclusion that “the evidence led by the applicant
in the instant application fails to discharge the legal burden.” Again,
the applicant contends that the cost of GHS 3,000.00 awarded against the
applicant is excessive and might not even had been awarded considering all the
facts narrated in the application. It was further contended by the applicant
that in dismissing the application for stay of execution, the court failed to
exact security from the Plaintiff/Judgment/Creditor/Respondent (hereafter
called the “Respondent”). <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>In the view of applicant, the applicant is willing and ready to
provide a bank guarantee that ensures payment to be made to the Respondent in
the event the appeal fails. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Let me briefly state the background to the present application. On
the 14th December, 2016 the court entered judgment for the respondent herein
after a lengthy trial that spanned more than 12 months. The applicant
dissatisfied with the judgment lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal and
followed it up with a motion for stay pending appeal. The motion was argued and
the court delivered its ruling on the 9th February, 2017, dismissing the motion.
The court awarded costs of GHS 3,000.00 against the applicant. It is the ruling
of the court delivered on the 9th February, 2017, that the present application
has been filed for its review. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have read the application and the respective affidavits filed by
the parties. I have considered the submissions made by both counsel. Thoughtful
consideration has been given to Order 74 of CI 47 rule 12 thereof and Order 42
of CI 47. Consideration has further been given to the principles governing
applications for review. It is however, useful to reproduce Order 42 and 74. <o:p></o:p>Order 42 rule 1 (1) &amp; (2) <o:p></o:p>1 (1) A person who is aggrieved <o:p></o:p>(a) By a judgment or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred; or <o:p></o:p>(b) By a judgment or order from which no appeal is allowed, <o:p></o:p>May upon the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within that person’s
knowledge or could not be produced by that person at the time when the judgment
was given or </main>