ANTONIO OLIMPIO SANTOS FELEX vs. GIOVANNI ANTONELLI & 1 OR [2016]DLCA8458

Date	2016-07-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H3/449/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA8458

GYAESAYOR JA (PRESIDING)

KORBIEH JA

WELBOURNE (MRS.) JA

MR. ATTA AKYEA FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT WITH HIM

KWASI ADDO YOBO AND STANLEY ADJEI

MR. YONI KULENDI FOR PLAINITFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT WITH HIM

ABU JINAPOR

ABU JINAPOR GEORGINA ARTHUR

STEPHEN OBENG DARKOH AND JOSEPH OFORI MENSAH.

[2016]DLCA8458
																																						<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" >ANTONIO OLIMPIO SANTOS
FELEX<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GIOVANNI ANTONELLI &amp; 1 OR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H3/449/16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 23RD JULY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. ATTA AKYEA FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT with him
Kwasi Addo Yobo aNd Stanley Adjei <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">

MR.
YONI KULENDI FOR PLAINITFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT WITH HIM ABU JINAPOR GEORGINA
ARTHUR, STEPHEN OBENG DARKOH AND JOSEPH OFORI MENSAH.<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">

GYAESAYOR
JA (PRESIDING), KORBIEH JA, WELBOURNE (MRS.) JA<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;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>GYAESAYOR,
JA<o:p></o:p>Parties
are locked up in a business litigation in respect of certain equipment shipped
into the country by plaintiff/respondent to the benefit of 2nd
defendant which was to use the said equipment to defray cost of shares being
acquired by plaintiff/respondent. As a result of a dispute which arose between
them the matter went to the High Court which in the course of the hearing and
upon an application brought by the plaintiff made an order of interim
preservation of the equipment pending the determination of the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants applied for stay of the order after an application for interim injunction
filed by them was refused. A subsequent application for stay of execution was
also refused by the trial court in a ruling dated 26/4/2016. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The application
was repeated in the court of appeal before a single appellate judge who refused
the application on the grounds that there are no exceptional circumstances to
warrant the grant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
instant application is for the full bench to reverse the order of the single
appellate judge.&nbsp; We have taken a serious
look at the reasons given by both the lower court and the court of appeal and
we find that both decisions are intended to preserve the equipment from wear
and tear and thus putting the plaintiffs/respondents to a disadvantage.&nbsp; As rightly stated by both courts the
equipment can possibly be damaged if they are allowed to remain with the 2nd
defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
ruling of 27th day of June 2016, the single appellate judge gave
cogent reasons for refusing to stay the order of the court granting the order for
preservation of the said equipment “which
are vulnerable to tear and wear, damage which would affect their value”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We
agree with that ruling in the interest of justice.&nbsp; We shall in the circumstance refuse the application
to vary the order of the single appellate judge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application is accordingly refused.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

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