EUNICE OPPONG vs. ABENA AGYIRIWA [2019]DLHC10459

Date	2019-08-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: LD/0550/19
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10459

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH

AURELIUS LAMPTEY HOLDING BRIEF FOR ISRAEL ACKAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT – PRESENT

TASSAH TAPHA TASSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESP. – PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10459
																																						<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" >EUNICE OPPONG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ABENA AGYIRIWA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO.: LD/0550/19 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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
AUGUST 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AURELIUS LAMPTEY HOLDING
BRIEF FOR ISRAEL ACKAH FOR THE<o:p></o:p>DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT – PRESENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

TASSAH TAPHA TASSAH FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESP. – PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELLEN VIVIAN AMOAH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
tab-stops:4.5pt;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>&nbsp;This
is a motion on notice for stay of execution pending appeal filed by the
applicant herein on the 18th of March 2019.&nbsp;
The principles governing stay of execution has been covered in cases
such as Eboe v Eboe 1961 GLR, Mensah v
Ghana Football Association 1989/90 GLR.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
general principles of law is that a litigant who succeed at trial is entitled
to enjoyed the fruits of his judgment on the authority of Nwabueze v Nwosu (1988) 4 NWLR part 88 page 257.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
is also the position of the law that in the consideration of an application for
stay of execution the nature of the subject matter on the authority of Dada v University for Lagos 1971 1 ULLR
must weigh on the court’s mind in addition to whether the order being appeal
against is executable or not.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Where
the judgment is in respect of money and costs, the court will also take into
consideration the probability of whether there is a reasonable prospect of
recovering this back from the respondent if the appeal succeeds.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Having
listened to the submissions of both counsel, the court notes on the authority
of Efwisi v Mbanugo 1970/71 1 ECSLR
that poverty is not a special ground for granting a stay of execution except
where the effect will be to deprive the appellant of the means of prosecuting
his appeal.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
is well known that the application for stay of execution is discretionary and
it is for the court to weigh the competing rights of the parties.&nbsp; It is for the applicant to put before the
court matters that would lead the court to conclude that a refusal to grant the
stay of execution pending appeal would be unjust and inequitable.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
the case of Willian v Wilson (2013) EWHC
3300 QB, the court considered an application for stay under CPR 52.3 (4) to
reconsider an order refusing a stay of execution pending appeal.&nbsp; In that case the court highlighted the need
to consider the justice of the case and whether it yielded to the clear and
obvious conclusion that a stay should not be granted.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
that consideration the court takes into account whether there was a risk of
harm to the other party whichever order the court considered granting.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On
the authority of Leicester Grants
Limited v Coates Brothers PLC 2002 EWCA, the principle was made clear that
it was only in balance of border line cases that a court should consider the
merit of an appeal in considering issues of stay of execution.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
has further been suggested at law that a court before whom the application of
stay of execution is brought, is not to prejudge the result of the appeal
neither is it to make statement indicating a concluded vi</main>