OGYEADOM OBRANU KWESI ATTA VI vs. GHANA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO LTD AND LANDS COMMISSION [2020]DLSC8776

OGYEADOM OBRANU KWESI ATTA VI vs. GHANA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO LTD AND LANDS CO... [2020]DLSC8776

Date	2020-04-28
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION J8/131/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC8776

ANIN YEBOAH CJ

DOTSE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL SAU JSC

KOTEY JSC

[2020]DLSC8776
																																						<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" >OGYEADOM OBRANU KWESI ATTA VI<o:p></o:p>[PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT]<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO LTD [1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT /APPLICANT] AND LANDS COMMISSION [2nD DEFENDANT]<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL MOTION J8/131/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 28TH APRIL, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ANIN YEBOAH CJ, DOTSE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, APPAU JSC,
PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL SAU JSC, KOTEY JSC<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="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>GBADEGBE
JSC:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On April 28, we allowed the application for
stay of execution in the matter herein, but reserved our reasons, which we now
proceed to provide as follows. For reasons of convenience, in these
proceedings, the parties will be referred to simply as the applicant and respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;We have
before us an application for stay of execution of the judgment of the Court of
Appeal which dismissed the appeal of the applicant from a decision of the High
Court by which it was ordered to pay to the respondent by way of damages USD
16,009,920.00. The circumstances under which the application herein is brought
before us may be stated briefly as follows. The respondent initiated a claim before
the High Court, Agona Swedru for certain reliefs which were based upon the
applicant’s alleged unlawful acts of encroachment upon a piece or parcel of
land belonging to the respondent’s family and the erection of a
telecommunication tower or mast thereon. The action went to through a mixed
trial at the end of which the learned trial judge delivered a judgment that
accepted the respondent’s version of the matter and awarded damages against the
applicant in the amount mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this
ruling.&nbsp; A repeat application for stay of
execution from the said judgment was granted by the Court of Appeal on November
07, 2017 requiring the applicant to pay 30% of the judgment debt. The applicant
complied with the order of stay of execution and on January 22, 2018 paid the
cedi equivalent in the sum of GHS21, 215,040.00 into court, the said sum having
been since released to the respondent.&nbsp;
The Court of Appeal inquired into the appeal and dismissed it on May 29,
2019. The applicant then filed an appeal to this court from the said judgment
on June 11, 2019 and a day thereafter filed an application for stay of execution
pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was granted on terms, which
applicant deemed a refusal, hence the repeat application before us under Rule
20 of the Supreme Court Rules, C I 6.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;The
application has been vehemently resisted by the respondent who contended
primarily that since the Court of Appeal’s decision was a judgment of dismissal
of the appeal, it did not make any executable order that can be enforced by a
writ of execution, the application was incompetent. In so contending, the
applicant relied on previous decisions of this court that where the Court of
Appeal merely dismissed an appeal, then no executory order is made that could
be stayed by an application for stay of execution. In this regard, the
respondent referred to among others, Ghana Football Association v Apaade
Lodge Ltd [2009] SCGLR 100 and Anang v Sowah [2009] SCGLR, 111. A
careful examination of these cases reveals that although Eboe v Eboe [1961]
GLR 432 is a pre-1992 decision, the declaratory principle continues to be
applied to cases which come before the Supreme Court subsequent to the coming
into force of the Constitution dealing with cases appealed to this court from
dismissal of appeals by the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>As the said decisions were pronounced by this
court, they are in principle binding upon us by virtue of article 129(3) of the
Constitution of 1992 which provides thus:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The Supreme Court may, while treating its own previous decisions as normally
binding, depart from a previous decision when it appears to it right to do so,
and all other courts shall be bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme
Court on questions of law.’<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>True, it is to say that there has been a collection
of cases of this court which preclude the court from exercising its
jurisdiction to grant stay of execution in cases which come before it in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction where the decision of the Court of
Appeal made no executable orders as in the matter before us. However, in the case
of NDK Financial Services Ltd v Yiadom Construction and Electrical Works and
Others [2007-2008]1 SCGLR 93, the court granted an order of stay of
execution of a non-executable order. Although this was by a majority decision,
it mirrors the concern of the learned justices about the earlier cases which
declined to grant stay of execution from non-executable orders. The words of
Brobbey JSC (as he then was) put the matter bluntly when he observed at page 98
of the report as follows:<o:p></o:p>