MRS. AMA OWUSUAA AGYEMANG vs. BLOWPLAST INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2018]DLHC9304

Date	2018-02-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 102/2015
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9304

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

GEORGE ESHUN AMISSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

WILLIAM OSEI KUFFOUR FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC9304
																																						<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>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BLOWPLAST
INDUSTRIES LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT 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; &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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">WILLIAM OSEI KUFFOUR FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">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; 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>(a)&nbsp; if the court was
satisfied upon any affidavit or facts proved of the conduct of the defeated
party that he was bringing the appeal not bona fide to test the rightness of
the judgment but for some collateral purpose the application should be refused;
<o:p></o:p>