IBRAHIM FELIX & 7 ORS. vs. THE NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY (N.P.P) & 4 ORS. [2015]DLHC8489

Date	2015-07-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C12/216/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC8489

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

[2015]DLHC8489
																																						<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" >IBRAHIM FELIX
&amp; 7 ORS.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE NEW
PATRIOTIC PARTY (N.P.P) &amp; 4 ORS.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<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">

SUIT
NO. C12/216/15&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;DATE: 17TH JULY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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">

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<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: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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
ruling concerns a legal issue raised by &nbsp;Mr Shaddrack Obeng Yeboah, Counsel for the
Plaintiff/Respondents, herein after called the respondents,&nbsp; in an application filed on behalf of the 2nd,
3rd and 4th Defendant/Applicants, to be referred to
hereafter as the applicants, praying for an order to stay further proceedings of
a suit dated the 11th day of May 2015, mounted by the respondents &nbsp;&nbsp;against&nbsp;
the applicants and two others &nbsp;because
of an appeal filed before the Court of Appeal by the applicants on 8th
July, 2015 against the decision of this court which dismissed their application&nbsp; seeking to dismiss the suit. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
the return date, Counsel for the respondents referred to, sought leave of the
court and raised a legal issue. In his submission, he contended that by virtue
of Rule 27A of the Court of Appeal Rules of 1997 (C.I. 19), as amended by the
Court of Appeal Rules of 1998 (C.I. 21), the application of the applicants,
being an interlocutory, should have been filed in the Court of Appeal as the
proper forum, and not at the High Court which made the interlocutory decision.
He also referred to the often cited Dan Abodakpi case. He insisted this court
has no jurisdiction to hear the application to stay proceedings and prayed for
it to be dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>His
colleague for the applicants, Dr Poku Adusei, submitted that the objection to
the forum of the applicant is baseless. According to him, the interlocutory
decision of this court was made only on 6th July, 2015, whilst the
notice of appeal was filed two days later on 8th July, 2015. Thereafter
the instant application to stay proceedings was filed on 9th July,
2015 at a time the record had not been settled and transmitted to the Court of
Appeal for which reason the whole matter was still pending at the High Court.
He argued that as the record is not before the Court of Appeal, the matter
cannot be regarded as pending before it to enable it exercise its authority
over it. He argued that as the matter is now pending in the High Court, the
High Court rather than the Court of Appeal, is the proper forum to determine
the application for stay of proceedings. It is his position that this court has
an inherent jurisdiction to determine the application which according to him
could be made under Order 19 r (1) of C.I. 47. He referred the to the
unreported Supreme Court case of the Republic v High Court (Commercial Division
A) Tamale; Exparte Dakpem Zobogunaa Henry Kaleem (substituted by Alhassan I.
Dakpema); Dakpema Naa Alhassan Mohammed Dawumi_Interested Party, Civil motion
No. J5/6/2015 of 4th June, 2015, in which the Court said per Benin
JSC at page 10 of the report that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;“ The High Courtrules do not make sprcific
provision for a stay of proceedings, so any such application can be made under
rule 19 thereof as the court has an inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings
for a variety of reasons, for instance to encourage settlement. But even where
specific provision is made in the rules, it will still not deny the court of
its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings inb various circumstances, for as
stated by Halsbury’s Laws of England, 5th edition, paragraph 533at
p. 422 ‘… the two sources of the court’s power continue to exist side by side
and may be invoked cumulatively or alternatively”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I presume the learned counsel referred to this
case to support his submission that the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction
to determine the instant application. According to him the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, C.I. 47, unlike the Court of Appeal rules, has not made
provision for stay of proceedings but that does not take away the inherent jurisdiction
of the court to consider such applications, especially unlike the Abodakpi case
when the record is yet to be settled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal. He urged the court to ignore the
prayer of the counsel for the respondents that the court is not properly seised
with jurisdiction to hear the application to stay proceedings. I agree with counsel for the
applicants that the court could determine an application for stay of
proceedings in a matter pending before it even in the absence of an express
provision to that event in C.I. 47, but that cannot be the same of an
application for a stay of proceedings to await the determination of an
interlocutory appeal filed at the Court of Appeal.&nbsp; In such a situation it is the Court of Appeal
rather than the High Court that has jurisdiction to hear the matter as provided
for in the Court of Appeal Rules. The Supreme Court case referred to by counsel
for the applicants was not about an application for stay of p</main>