THE REPUBLIC vs. YVONNE AMPONSAH BROBBEY EX PARTE: MRS. GLADYS NKRUMAH [2022]DLHC11768

Date	2022-07-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CR/0494/2022
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11768

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

KWASI AFRIFA FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

EUNAS KOFI ESHUN WITH EMMA JANE DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

[2022]DLHC11768
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>YVONNE AMPONSAH BROBBEY<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE: MRS. GLADYS NKRUMAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)<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;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>KWASI AFRIFA FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<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" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EUNAS KOFI ESHUN
WITH EMMA JANE DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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;">

</div>&nbsp;I have listened to
the submissions for and against the grant of Stay of Proceedings pending
appeal.&nbsp; I have also gone through all the
documents filed in this application.<o:p></o:p>It is the law that
Stay of Proceedings pending appeal is predicate on either of these three sources;
These are the court inherent jurisdiction, the rules of Court if any as
provided by statute and the provisions of a particular statute. For example,
Arbitration statute.<o:p></o:p>In Atkins Encyclopaedia
of Court Forms in Civil Proceedings, 2nd edition, volume 37, the auditors
stated at page 189 as follows:<o:p></o:p>“A
stay of proceedings arises when under an order of the Court, Proceedings which have
been pending in that Court are brought to a halt at the stage which they have
reached, so that while the stay is in operation, the parties are precluded from
taking any further step in the proceedings. Stay of Proceedings is therefore a
serious and grave step because, its consequences may have far reaching
importance on the parties.&nbsp; It is a rule
of procedure that a litigant is entitled to have his claim to a relief or remedy
which he seeks, tried on the substantive merits of the case. &nbsp;Therefore, a stay of proceedings is a
discretionary remedy which ought to be exercised very sparingly and only in
exceptional cases”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;See also
ERIC TEI AKWETEY &amp; OTHER v TETTEH SIAW SAPPORE &amp; OTHERS [2017] 109 GMJ
153 SC<o:p></o:p>TSATSU TSIKATA v THE REPUBLIC [2018] 116 GMJ 239
CA<o:p></o:p>Therefore, in Stay
of Proceedings, the Applicant has a burden to show that there exist grounds to allow
a court to put a halt in the interim on the continuation of the proceedings.<o:p></o:p>See: MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v ATTORNEY GENERAL &amp;
2 ORS, SUIT NO. J8/08/2018, DATED 28TH NOVEMBER, 2017 SC<o:p></o:p>ZIKPUTOR AKPATSU FENU &amp; 4 OTHERS v ATTORNEY
GENERAL &amp; 3 OTHERS, SUIT NO. J4/40/2018, DATED 17TH OCTOBER,
2018 SC<o:p></o:p>The law is settled
that the mere pendency of an interlocutory appeal does not justify the court t</main>