KWADWO OPOKU & ANOTHER vs . ERIC KOFI BOATENG [2019]DLHC6838

Date	2019-04-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 80/2017
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6838

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J

AKUA POKUAA KWARTENG FOR PLAINTIFF

AMA ASENSO FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC6838
																																						<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" >KWADWO OPOKU &amp;
ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs&nbsp; .<o:p></o:p>ERIC KOFI BOATENG<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: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">SUIT
NO.&nbsp; OCC 80/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 5TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AKUA
POKUAA KWARTENG FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>AMA
ASENSO FOR THE DEFENDANT <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>&nbsp;DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE 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="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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>The defendant/judgment debtor/applicant
(hereinafter referred to as the applicant) filed this application by motion on
notice for stay of execution of the judgment delivered by this court against
him on 24th January, 2019.<o:p></o:p>By a writ of summons issued on the 30th
May, 2017, the plaintiffs/judgment creditors/respondents (hereinafter referred
to as the respondents) claimed against the defendant herein as follows:<o:p></o:p>a) Recovery of the land as well as the
building thereon known as house No. Block 39, Plot 1, Ahodwo, Kumasi.<o:p></o:p>b) An order from this Honorable court
directing the Defendant to render accounts on the said property.<o:p></o:p>c) General damages for the breach of
the lease agreement of 18th August 1999.<o:p></o:p>d) Costs including lawyer’s fees.<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 4th of February, 2019 on the ground that the judgment
is wrong. <o:p></o:p>The applicant contends that the appeal
is likely to succeed and unless execution is stayed, the appeal shall be
rendered nugatory, as the respondents are not in a position to refund the
damages awarded against him. Furthermore, applicant says greater hardship will
be suffered by him if execution is not stayed.<o:p></o:p>In moving the application counsel for
the applicant submitted that there are fundamental issues of law to be decided
on appeal. She submitted that the Notice of Appeal raises the question of
whether damages can be properly awarded where the contract has been found to be
unenforceable. She cited the case of Dzobo v Agbleblewu 1991 1GLR 294 holding 1
and Joseph v Jebeile (1963) 1 GLR 387, SC among other authorities and invited
the court to grant the application.<o:p></o:p>The respondents are opposed to the
application. The gravamen of their opposition is that the appeal is not likely
to succeed and that the application is calculated to frustrate them from
enjoying the fruits of his well-earned victory in the case. They also contend
in their affidavit in opposition that a stay of execution will cause greater
hardship to them than the defendant/applicant.<o:p></o:p>In his oral response to the
application, counsel for the respondents submitted that the grounds of appeal
as contained in the Notice of Appeal contain blatant misrepresentations of the
holding and pronouncement of the court in its judgment. Counsel submitted
further that the grounds of appeal are so faul</main>