[2019]DLHC7130 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">FORTUNE GLOBAL SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS LIMITED</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(<i>PLAINTIFF)</i><b><span style="color:#00B0F0"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">THE VESSEL DLB SEA HORIZON & 9 ORS</span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Book Antiqua","serif"">[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="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"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">SUIT NO: CM/RPC/0641/2018</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> DATE: 24<sup>TH</sup> MAY, 2019<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">KOFI MBIAH ESQ. WITH BENJAMIN QUORNOOH ESQ., FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">D.K. AMELEY ESQ., WITH LONGDON SOWAH ESQ., FOR 1<sup>ST</sup>, 2<sup>ND</sup>, 3<sup>RD</sup> AND 10<sup>TH</sup> DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops: 111.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, J.<o:p></o:p></span></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;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"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">By a motion filed on the 5<sup>th</sup> April 2019, the plaintiff/applicant seeks an order from this court staying the execution of orders made by the court on the 28<sup>th</sup> February 2019. The 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> 3<sup>rd</sup> and the 10<sup>th</sup> defendants are opposed to the application as shown by their affidavit in opposition filed on the 10<sup>th</sup> April 2019. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">On the 28<sup>th</sup> day of February 2019, this court ordered, upon application, the applicant herein to furnish security for cost in favour of the respondents herein in the sum of $400,000.00 within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the said order. The court again, on application, ordered the applicant herein to furnish the respondents herein with further and better particulars of certain averments contained in their statement of claim. It is these orders that the applicant prays to stay upon ground that the applicant has filed an appeal against the said orders and that if the execution thereof is not stayed, the said appeal will be rendered nugatory.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">The court has examined exhibit EA3 which the applicant says is the Notice of Interlocutory Appeal which it has filed and based upon which it seeks the relief of stay of execution. Clearly, exhibit EA3 is not and can never be a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal upon which an application for stay can be hinged. The said exhibit is filed to the “High Court of Justice, Commercial Division” and it is addressed to “The Registrar of the Commercial Court”. In the opinion of the court therefore, the purported Notice of Interlocutory Appeal is defective and invalid as it infringes Rule 8(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, CI 19 and it can, therefore, not be the basis for an application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. Indeed, there is no appeal pending before any Court of Appeal and on this ground alone the application is refused. It is very instructive to recall the holding in <b>Nye vs. Nye [1967] GLR 78</b> at pages 82 to 83 where Akufo Addo CJ stated that:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">It must be appreciated that there is no inherent right of appeal, in a litigant; nor indeed is there an inherent power in any court to hear appeals. Both the right and the power are creatures of statute, and unless the enactment creating the right of appeal and the power to hear an appeal is explicit, clear and unambiguous in its language, no such right and no such power can ever materialise. When however the right and the power do materialise they are exercisable only within the framework of the conditions imposed for their exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">In <b>Ghana Football Association vs. Apaade Lodge Ltd [2009] SCGLR 100</b>, the Court pointed out, at page 110 of the report that, where there is no appeal pending against the judgment sought to be stayed, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution. It follows therefore that since there is no valid appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, as shown above the, instant application for stay of execution pending appeal cannot be entertained by the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">Further to the above, it is important to note that on the 28<sup>th</sup> day of March 2019, long after the expiration of the dates given to the applicant to comply with the orders made by the court on the 28<sup>th</sup> February 2019, the applicant applied for extension of time within which they will comply with the orders of the court. The court obliged and extended time for the applicant and gave the applicant more time to comply with the orders. It is significant to, again, point out that the instant application for stay of execution was filed on the very date that the extended time was to expire. The court therefore does not see any good faith on the part of the applicant and the court deems the conduct of the applicant and the instant application as having been made mala fides. The court can therefore not exercise its discretion, as far as the instant application is concerned, in favour of the applicant. The conduct of the applicant is nothing short of a person whose main aim is to delay the progress of this case as much as he can and the court will not lend its assistance to the applicant in that endeavour.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">Quite apart from the fact that no valid appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal, the applicant, in its affidavit, deposes to the appeal being rendered nugatory should the instant application be refused. Assuming there is a valid appeal pending against the orders of the court made on 28<sup>th</sup> February 2019 and assuming that the applicant successfully prosecutes the said appeal, the relief that will be available to the applicant will be that they should not furnish security for cost and neither should they provide further and better particulars of the averments contained in their statement of claim. So in what way will these orders, if made at all at the appellate level, be rendered nugatory should the instant application be refused?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-famil