NII OKWEI KINKA DOWUONA VI vs. TAYSEC CONSTRUCTION LTD. & 2 ORS. [2018]DLCA5270

Date	2018-04-11
Suit No.	CIVIL APEEAL NO.H3/96/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA5270

GYAESAYOR J.A. (PRESIDING)

AMADU J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

KWAME OFOSU GYEABOUR FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

DAVID KODOADZI WITH L. HESSE FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2018]DLCA5270
																																						<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" >NII OKWEI
KINKA DOWUONA VI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>TAYSEC
CONSTRUCTION LTD. &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi"><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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APEEAL NO.H3/96/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
11TH APRIL, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KWAME
OFOSU GYEABOUR FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <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">

DAVID
KODOADZI WITH L. HESSE FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <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">

GYAESAYOR
J.A. (PRESIDING), AMADU J.A., SUURBAAREH J.A.<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">

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

</div>SUURBAAREH,
J.A.:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In this application, the
defendants/appellants/ applicants are seeking to stay execution of two rulings
of the High Court dated 8th February, 2017 and 28th July,
2017, pending appeal.&nbsp; The Notice of
Appeal, exhibit ‘B’ attached to the motion paper however shows that the appeal
is against the judgment of the court dated 28th July, 2017.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Eventhough the Notice of
Appeal, exhibit ‘B’ is in respect of the ruling/judgment of 28th
July, 2017, the grounds of appeal, especially grounds (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi)
clearly relate to the ruling of 8th February, 2017.&nbsp; The ruling of 28th July, 2017 only
determined damages to be awarded based on a valuation report and in respect of
which the defendants/appellants/applicants never challenged as they failed to
cross-examine on it eventhough their counsel was in court.&nbsp; See exhibit NOK 3, exhibited to the affidavit
in opposition which refused an application for stay of execution.&nbsp; Since the valuation report was not
challenged, grounds (i) and (v) of the grounds of appeal on the Notice of
Appeal do not arise and cannot be said to constitute serious issues for the
appellate court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the reliefs sought in
the Notice of Appeal exhibit ‘B’, reliefs (i) and (ii) do not arise from the
ruling of 28th July, 2017 but rather the ruling of 8th
February, 2017.&nbsp; Eventhough the order for
damages were made in the ruling of 28th July, 2017, as the valuation
report on which same was based was not challenged they therefore do not constitute
any serious grounds of appeal.&nbsp; This mere
fact of the award appearing big per se is not a special circumstance in such an
application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the affidavit in
opposition, following the ruling of 8th February, 2017 the 1st
defendant/appellant/applicant alone filed a Notice of Appeal against same and
upon which it applied to stay execution but this was refused, per exhibit NOK 2
attached to the affidavit in opposition, by the trial judge for the reason that
there was no appeal pending as the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the 21
days in respect of an interlocutory ruling and thus void.&nbsp; It therefore means that grounds (ii), (iii),
(iv) and (vi) of the grounds of appeal are in respect of the ruling of 8th
February, 2017 in respect of which there is no appeal pending. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>