MRS. AMA OWUSUAA AGYEMANG vs. BLOWPLAST INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2018]DLHC3989

Date	2018-02-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC. 102/2015
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3989

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

GEORGE ESHUN AMISSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

WILLIAM OSEI KUFFOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC3989
																																						<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" >MRS. AMA OWUSUAA
AGYEMANG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BLOWPLAST INDUSTRIES
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC. 102/2015&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; DATE: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>GEORGE ESHUN AMISSAH FOR
THE DEFENDANT/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">

</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">

</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;line-height:115%;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>The
applicant herein “Blowplast Industries Limited” filed this application by motion
on notice for stay of execution of the judgment delivered by this court against
the defendant/applicant on 26/10/2017.<o:p></o:p>By
a writ of summons issued on the 15 January 2015, the plaintiff/respondent
herein claimed against the defendant/applicant herein as follows:<o:p></o:p>a.
An order that defendant do forthwith deliver up to plaintiff three hundred
(300) blowstar packs or its current price. <o:p></o:p>b.
An order that defendant do forthwith deliver up to Plaintiff twenty-three (23)
blowstar packs or its current price resulting from reduction of unit price of
blowstar pack from sixty-eight (68) GH cedis to sixty-five (65) GH cedis.<o:p></o:p>c.
An order for the recovery of the amount of eight thousand GH cedis (GHC
8,000.00) being lost profit from the sale of the balance of the 323 blowstar
packs undelivered by the defendant plus interest of 35.0% from August 2014 to
date of final payment. <o:p></o:p>d.
General and Special Damages for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>The
basis of the application is that the Applicant being dissatisfied with the judgment
of the court, filed a Notice of Appeal on 15th December, 2017
setting down the grounds of appeal as follows:<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
The judgment is against the weight of
evidence; and<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned judge erred in holding the
Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for non-delivery to Plaintiff in Kumasi of
goods ordered by the Plaintiff when the Defendant’s responsibility under the
contract ended upon delivery of the goods at the Defendant’s factory to the
Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant contends that the appeal raises substantive questions of law and fact
and unless execution is stayed, the appeal shall be rendered a nugatory.
Furthermore, applicant submits that substantial loss or great injustice will be
suffered by it if execution is not stayed.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent is opposed to the application. The gravamen of her opposition is
that the appeal is not likely to succeed and that the application is calculated
to frustrate her from enjoying the fruits of her well-earned victory in the
case. She also contends in her affidavit in opposition that a stay of execution
will cause her greater hardship than the defendant/applicant.<o:p></o:p>The
grant of stay of execution is a discretionary power exercised by the court. In exercising
its discretion, the court must take into consideration the competing rights of
the parties. The power to grant stay of execution is an exercise of judicial
discretion which is guided by defined principles.<o:p></o:p>The
legal principles applicable in granting or refusing the application of a stay
of execution pending appeal is encapsulated in the case of Nana Akwasi Agyeman
VIII v Nana Hima Dekyi XIII(1982-83) GLR453 as follows:<o:p></o:p><</main>