AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE (PLAINTIFF) vs. ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY (DEFENDANT) [2018]DLHC7185

Date	2018-05-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/344/2007
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7185

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

AKAWARI ATINDEM FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

SOWAH CHARWAY FOR SARFO BUABENG FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC7185
																																						<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" >AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION),
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">

SUIT NO. RPC/344/2007&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 9TH MAY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>AKAWARI ATINDEM FOR 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">

SOWAH CHARWAY FOR SARFO BUABENG FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K.
KOOMSON (J).<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 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-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is an application for stay of
execution filed by the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor/ Applicant.&nbsp; I have read the application and the
supporting affidavits.&nbsp; I have also read
the affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; Regard has
been given to the principles governing the grant or otherwise of applications
of this nature.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is noted that the court ordered
both counsel to file their written submissions.&nbsp;
None of them has complied.&nbsp; The
court however finds it necessary to determine the application without the
submissions of the lawyers as they have both shown that they do not want to
address me.<o:p></o:p>After examining the affidavit filed
by the Defendant/Applicant, I find no merit in the application.&nbsp; The judgment upon which the
Defendant/Applicant has lodged the appeal which also forms the basis of the
application has been found to be fraudulent.&nbsp;
It is therefore my view that any purported act based on the said
fraudulent judgment is void.<o:p></o:p>Again, the claim by the
Defendant/Applicant that the Defendant shall suffer hardship is untenable.&nbsp; In my view, the Defendant/Applicant having
benefited from the services provided by the Plaintiff/Respondent cannot turn
round to be talking about hardship.&nbsp;
Rather, the non-payment of the Defendant/Applicant for the services
which the Plaintiff/Respondent gave to them all these years is working hardship
on the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>

Furthermore, the
Plaintiff/Respondent is a reputable company dealing in the repairs and sale of
vehicles and are capable of refunding, in the event the Defendant wins the
appeal, any money paid to it in accordance with the judgment.&nbsp; For the following reasons I refuse the
application for stay of execution.&nbsp; The
application is dismissed.&nbsp; I make no
order as to costs.<o:p></o:p></main>