SKYLIMIT STRUCTURE BUILDERS LTD vs. TULLOW GH LTD [2018]DLHC7216

Date	2018-07-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/18/13
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7216

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

THADDEUS SORY FOR PLAINTIFF/J/CR/RESP.

NANA BOAKYE FOR MENKA-PREMO FOR DEFENDANT/J/DR/APP.

[2018]DLHC7216
																																						<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" >SKYLIMIT
STRUCTURE BUILDERS LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TULLOW GH
LTD<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. BFS/18/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 26TH JULY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>THADDEUS
SORY FOR PLAINTIFF/J/CR/RESP.<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">

NANA
BOAKYE FOR MENKA-PREMO FOR DEFENDANT/J/DR/APP.<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 filed by the
Defendant/J/DR/Applicant praying the Court for interlocutory injunction pending
Appeal and for stay of proceedings of Execution of the judgment of the High
Court dated 14th December, 2016 pending the hearing of an
interlocutory appeal, at the Court of Appeal.&nbsp;
The Applicant brought the application under the inherent jurisdiction of
the Court.&nbsp; It is noted that the Court
drew the attention of counsel for the Defendant/Applicant to the fact that the
application relating to interlocutory injunction is incompetent.&nbsp; Counsel conceded and withdrew that aspect of
the application.&nbsp; Arguing the other
aspect of the application, counsel for the Applicant stated that they have
lodged an appeal against the decision of this court granting leave to the
Plaintiff/Respondent to amend the entry of judgment.&nbsp; Based upon this interlocutory appeal, counsel
states that it is likely the Plaintiff/Respondent will file an execution
process to enforce the judgment of the court dated 14th December,
2016.<o:p></o:p>Counsel further contended that having
appealed against the decision of the court to grant leave to amend the entry of
judgment, the court should stay proceeding in any future process that the
Plaintiff/Respondent may file to enforce the judgment.<o:p></o:p>I must say that the application has no
legal foundation.&nbsp; I am not the little
enthused by the filing of such time wasting applications.&nbsp; I find it ridiculous for such experienced
lawyer to file such an application.<o:p></o:p>In my view, this application has been
filed for the sake of obtaining another decision of this court so as to lodge
another appeal with a view to delaying the payment of the judgment debt that
the Defendant owes to the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>It is interesting to note that there is
currently no process before this court which is based on the decision of the
court which is the subject matter of the interlocutory appeal filed by the
Applicant.&nbsp; What, therefore, the
applicant is asking the court to do is to stay proceedings in respect of any
future process that the Plaintiff/Respondent may file based on the amended
entry of judgment.&nbsp; I would like to note
that this court does not issue blanket orders.&nbsp;
To stay proceedings in a matter, there should first be a process which
requires adjudication by the court.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In this instant matter, the court is
yet to be even informed if the Plaintiff/Respondent has even complied with the
order to amend the entry of judgment.&nbsp;
That order was made and the Respondent was given a period of time within
which to comply.&nbsp; Failure to comply
within the time given, the order lapses.&nbsp;
It is difficult for me to comprehend the reasoning of counsel for the
Applicant in that regard.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>As I have stated earlier, there is no
process pending or having been filed in this matter for which the Court can
stay its proceedings.&nbsp; The present
application is too speculation.<o:p></o:p>I would like to note that the time has
come for lawyers representing clients to give the right and appropriate advise
and to stop being petty in respect of cases they handle for their clients.&nbsp; This application, I must say if it is granted
may set a dangerous precedent.&nbsp; In all humility,
I think the application ought to have not been filed at all.&nbsp; It has no merit.&nbsp; Same is accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p>In my view, the costs in this application
ought to be paid by counsel for the Defendant/Judgment/Debtor/Applicant.&nbsp; Accordingly I award costs of GH¢10,000.00
against defence counsel.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

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