ADM COCOA GHANA LIMITED vs. INTERNATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED [2015]DLSC3047

Date	2015-05-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/47/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLSC3047

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO (MS) JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

BENIN JSC

KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE APPLICANT.

EDEM KUTSIENYO (LED BY LAWRENCE OTOO) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2015]DLSC3047
																																						<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" >ADM COCOA GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTERNATIONAL LAND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/47/2015&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 7TH
MAY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWAME
BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

EDEM
KUTSIENYO (LED BY LAWRENCE OTOO) FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) JSC, ADINYIRA
(MRS) JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AND BENIN JSC<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA JSC: <o:p></o:p>The
brief facts of this application are that a judgment for US$2 million damages
was given by the High Court in favour of the respondent against the
applicant.&nbsp; Upon the transmission of the
record of appeal to the Court of Appeal the applicant unsuccessfully thereat
applied for a stay of execution of the said judgment pending the determination
of the appeal by the court of Appeal.&nbsp;
Having appealed to this court against the said refusal the applicant
again applied unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal for a stay of
execution.&nbsp; The course of events from
that stage is best captured in paragraphs 9 to 17 of the applicant’s affidavit
in support of its present application before this court.<o:p></o:p>They
are as follows:<o:p></o:p>“9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That pending the determination of the Interlocutory
Appeal to this Court, the Applicant filed an Application before the Court of
Appeal seeking to suspend any steps on the Entry of Judgment by the
Plaintiff/Respondent pending the determination of the Interlocutory Appeal
(Exhibit KBA “4”)<o:p></o:p>10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that on the 25th of February,
2015 the Court of Appeal Coram, Marfo Sau J.A. (Presiding), Aduamah Osei J.A.
and L. L. Mensah J.A. heard the Application and dismissed same on the ground
that the decision of the Court of Appeal (Exhibit KBA “2”) was binding upon
them and therefore the appropriate place for the Application is the Supreme
Court. The Applicant has since applied for the ruling of the Court of
Appeal.&nbsp; Attached and marked as Exhibit
“KBA 5” is evidence of same.<o:p></o:p>11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That in the circumstances, this Application
is thus a repeat Application.<o:p></o:p>12.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the Applicant is of the respectful
position that the “nugatory test” adopted by the Court of Appeal in Exhibit KBA
“3” did not take into consideration the clear fact that the Respondent’s
position that it was a going concern capable of refunding the Judgment debt in
the event that the Applicant succeeded in the Appeal, was a bald claim for
there was nothing supportive of same.<o:p></o:p>13.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That at all material times, the issue
between the parties was whether or not the warehouse floor had failed because
of inferior materials and workmanship (Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s
contention) or because the Plaintiff/Respondent had allowed trucks to come into
the warehouse without regard to the concrete strength of the warehouse floor.
(Defendant/Appellant/Applicant’s contention.)<o:p></o:p>14.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the High Court awarded the
Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent the sum of Two Million United States Dollars
(US$2,000,000) and that in the event that the Appeal succeeds, the
Defendant/Appellant/Applicant will be saddled with a worthless warehouse.&nbsp; Attached and marked as Exhibit “KBA 6” is a
copy of the Judgment of the High Court.<o:p></o:p>15.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That above all, the recovery of any sums
paid as Judgment debt from the Plaintiff/Respondent may lead to further
litigation which can easily be avoided by a stay of execution.<o:p></o:p>16.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That in the circumstances, the Applicant
respectfully, states that the Court of Appeal in the application of the
“nugatory test” thereby violated the integrity of the Appellate process.<o:p></o:p>17.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Th</main>